Official Report: Tuesday 14 April 2026

Mrs Dillon: I congratulate Cahal Clarke, Aoibh Clarke, Rónán Johnson and Craic Theatre and Arts Centre in Coalisland on their production of 'Called Out', which was written by Cahal and directed by Aoibh, with Rónán playing all the characters in a one-man show. It truly was a hard-hitting production, exploring the courage required of young men in particular to call out their peers' harmful behaviours and attitudes. It was a thought-provoking piece of work, delivered through funding provided by Mid Ulster District Council through the Executive strategy to end violence against women and girls.

The difference with that production and how if differed from other things that I have seen that funding used for is that it was very aware of its target audience and how to reach it and of how it had the potential to make young people ask themselves whether they are willing to question harmful behaviours and attitudes among their peers. The play tells the story of what happens when, because they are their friends, they know them, they like them and they have grown up with them, men and boys do not challenge harmful behaviours displayed by other men and boys. It is for those very reasons that they fail to challenge such behaviours.

The production was shown to many post-primary schools across mid-Ulster, and the feedback from the young people, their parents, their teachers and the adults around them has been outstanding because of the conversations that they were having afterwards. I spoke to some parents who went to see the play on the Friday night, and they said that, because of the opportunity to have a conversation after seeing it, all parents should see the production with their young people.

The thoughtful way in which the production was presented has real potential to change how people think about harmful behaviours and attitudes towards women and girls. It is important that more young people across the North get the opportunity to see the play. We are well aware that 30 women have been murdered in the North since 2020, but we also need to understand that, in many cases, the men who killed those women displayed harmful behaviours before killing their partner, their wife or their mother. Were they challenged by their peers and their family? Many women and girls who are the victims of domestic and sexual violence will tell you that those men were not only not challenged by their peers and their family but were defended by them. Their behaviours were explained away.

I will finish with a quote from Margaret Atwood. It comes from the 1980s, but, unfortunately, it is still the case:

Mrs Middleton: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Chamber not only as a representative of the Foyle constituency but as a community member who has long seen the devastating effects of mental ill health in Foyle and beyond, most recently in my home. I offer hope, compassion and genuine care to those who are walking the complex journey that is mental illness. To anyone listening who is currently walking that journey, I say this: you are seen, you are valued, and your struggle does not define your worth.

Poor mental health is a universal human experience. It does not discriminate. It does not care about your postcode, your politics or your profession. Whether you live in the Waterside or the Cityside and whether you are a business owner or a student at Magee university, the pain of depression or the grip of trauma can affect anyone.

In Foyle, we are a resilient people, but resilience does not have to mean suffering alone. It means being able to say, "I am not OK", knowing that your community will rally around you. Saying that you need help is a brave step to take, not an easy one.

We must be honest about the consequences of inaction. In Northern Ireland, we carry a unique legacy of trauma that continues to cast a long shadow on our citizens. When mental health support fails, the ripples are felt everywhere, most tragically in the home, where heartbreak is felt from suicide. One life lost is one too many. We know that one in five adults here will face mental health challenges. Those people are not just statistics; they are our neighbours, friends, colleagues and family members. They are valued individuals.

Importantly, there is always hope. In Foyle, we are blessed with incredible organisations, therapists, the NHS, charities and churches. There is help out there. Those services are the heartbeat of our city's recovery, but they cannot do it alone. As an MLA, I am committed to doing my part, to listening, to learning and to being proactive on the issue. Let us replace the stigma of past attitudes towards mental health with compassion and the hope of a bright future, of help when it is required and of a deeper understanding by us all.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: I welcome you officially to the Chamber, Julie. This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to do so in person in the Chamber. On behalf of everyone, I know, I also express our best wishes to Gary for a full and speedy recovery.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Miss McAllister: I also welcome Julie to the Chamber today and wish Gary all the best. He was always a pleasure to work with.

I will speak today about breast cancer referral times. I have spoken about that in the Chamber many times over the past year and, indeed, since being elected as an MLA for North Belfast. Over the past two weeks, we have had Easter recess, when many people took a break to recuperate and perhaps took some time to spend with their family. During that time, however, many women in Northern Ireland were having to wait anxiously for an urgent, red-flag breast cancer diagnosis appointment.

Over the past 14 days, we saw statistics come out from the Department of Health that showed the Department patting itself on the back. The Minister's response was to welcome the improvement, yet the statistics showed that just 6% of women who were waiting for a red-flag appointment were seen in that two-week window. We also had women coming forward in the media during that time, highlighting that they had waited up to 10 weeks for their appointment and, indeed, had unfortunately been diagnosed with cancer after that time. We all know the importance of early detection and treatment for the likelihood of success in battling a cancer diagnosis. Seeing such a small proportion of women being seen in that two-week window is nothing short of a disgrace.

I pay tribute to the many clinicians who work overtime on the ground. They are trying to see improvements in that area. Unfortunately, that will not be sustainable.

How long do we expect those clinicians to run themselves into the ground for? How many extra shifts, including weekend shifts, can they do to see all the women who are waiting for that life-changing diagnosis?

We urgently need a workforce strategy and a service strategy from the Department because the situation is not the fault of clinicians on the ground; it is a systemic issue. There are fundamental problems that need to be structurally addressed. We want to tell women that they can receive their life-changing diagnosis and treatment in good time, but, unfortunately, over the past year, many people have waited for up to 10 weeks to begin that treatment, and that has often made things worse. Rather than trying to frame those statistics as an improvement, we need long-term ambitions for breast cancer diagnosis so that women in all of our constituencies can be seen in good time, rather than having the overwhelming stress and anxiety of that wait.

Dr Aiken: Yesterday, at the end of questions to the Infrastructure Minister, I pointed out that, far from our Government paying billions to the war against Iran, we are, in fact, paying nothing towards that conflict. Rather than believing the spin from Sinn Féin, we should concentrate on the real and diminishing state of our national defences. To add to that rather hypocritical position taken by a Sinn Féin Minister and in yet another nugatory debate that was brought to the House by the Sinn Féin MLA for South Antrim later the same day, not only is the United Kingdom not investing enough in its defence but it has now taken on the responsibility for defending the airspace, cyberspace, sea space and subsea space of the Irish Republic at a cost of millions to the UK taxpayer, while the Irish Government find half a billion euro for fuel subsidies. While we defend the Irish Republic, it shows no indication of moving away from its freeloading approach to defence, and the Irish lecture us and others about security concerns.

This morning, in the 'Financial Times', Lord Robertson, an ex-Labour Secretary of State for Defence, former secretary-general of NATO and co-author of Starmer's latest strategic defence review, gave a damning indictment of the state of our nation's defence today. He said:

The first duty of any British Prime Minister is, supposedly, the defence and security of our nation. Paradoxically, we have also committed ourselves to the defence and security of our neighbour — a neighbour who seems more interested in taking us to court than investing even a modicum of its tax-avoidance revenues in support of the rest of us in defending our values. Any normal Prime Minister would rectify both of those issues with urgency. That should be a matter of concern for all of us. Sticking proverbial heads in the sand will do neither and should not be supported.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome Julie Middleton to the Chamber. It is great to see you here. I know that you will be a strong voice for the people of Foyle. It goes without saying that I wish Gary all the best as he works towards recovery.

At a time of growing uncertainty across the world, we are beginning to see a shift in Europe. There is a renewed sense of unity, and a recognition that the challenges that we face, whether economic instability, geopolitical conflict or external interference, are best met together, not alone. Across the continent, countries are choosing cooperation over isolation. They are rejecting outside influence that seeks to divide and destabilise. In doing so, they offer a clear sense of direction and purpose. We also see signs of new hope. The recent election result in Hungary has been viewed by many as a moment where voters have signalled a desire for a different path that is more open, more outward-looking and more aligned to European values.

At the same time, even here, on these islands, there has been a shift in tone. The British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has been clear in his assessment that Brexit did deep damage to the UK economy. That is a significant acknowledgement that should prompt serious reflection right here in the Chamber.

While others are moving forward together, we are still dealing with the consequences of being pulled apart from our closest neighbours.

The timing could not be more critical. As we watch the devastating situation unfold in the Middle East, where civilians are caught in conflict and instability spreads across the region, it is clearer now than ever before that we live in a really interconnected world. No region and no country can stand alone in the face of these challenges. That is why closer alignment within the European Union is not just an economic argument, although the economic case is overwhelming. It is about stability. It is about security. It is about ensuring that we are part of a collective voice that stands for peace, cooperation and with international law. For us here in the North, that matters deeply. Our economy, our society and our future are tied to strong relationships across these islands and across Europe. As Europe moves forward in greater unity, the question for us is simple. Will we continue to stand on the outside looking in, or will we take the steps needed to rebuild those relationships and secure our place within the shared future? I believe, today more than ever, that the answer is clear.

Mr Boylan: I also welcome Julie, wish her well in her role as a Foyle MLA, and extend my best wishes to Gary.

I take this opportunity to highlight Autism Awareness Month. This year, Autism NI is using this month to celebrate the spectrum and colour and to highlight unique differences. This month presents an opportunity to remind ourselves that we still have much work to do to better support children, young people and adults who live with autism, particularly when it comes to timely assessment and appropriate support, including post-19 provision.

Just before recess, the all-party group (APG) on autism met the Independent Autism Reviewer. First, I thank Ema Cubitt for her time and the information that she was able to provide us with. It was clear from the reviewer's evidence that good progress has been made on her work. However, it has been disappointing that, in my opinion, the Department of Health was not prepared for the establishment of the reviewer's office, even though it should have been aware of what was in the legislation. Had the Department been in a better state of readiness, the reviewer could have got down to work before now. Instead, she has had to focus on establishing her office while exercising the statutory functions that she is responsible for.

I welcome the reviewer's comments that she believes that there were barriers to progress within the Department of Health and across other Departments. Those barriers are now being addressed, which will lead to better cooperation. I agree with the reviewer, and what needs to be recognised across all Departments is that the changes needed to better support people with autism do not always cost a huge amount of money. However, the changes require a willingness to adapt. Take, for instance, the focus that the APG has had on the development of a special autism mental health service. That has not progressed in the way that we would like to see. As a result, people with autism continue to experience difficulties in accessing mental health services. That is not acceptable.

From our recent meeting, the overriding message is clear: the autism strategy needs to be given the priority that it deserves across all Departments, arm's-length bodies and other organisations. The delivery plan must see measurable targets that can be monitored and delivered to ensure that people with autism see impact on the services that they access.

I look forward to reading the reviewer's first annual report in the near future. I also look forward to supporting her in her work alongside the rest of the all-party group as we continue to demand improvements for people with autism.

Ms Bunting: In recent years, teachers, youth workers and parents have raised growing concerns about the problems facing our boys and young men. The problems are not anecdotal. Last March, the Centre for Social Justice published its 'Lost Boys' report: sobering research that gained national attention. It highlights serious issues across employment, education, family life and fatherhood, crime, health, technology and porn. It shows that boys are falling behind girls at school, are less likely to get into stable work, are significantly more likely to be involved in crime and are three and a half times more likely to take their own life. Two and a half million children in the UK are growing up without a father figure in the home, and, in the absence of positive male role models, many boys are turning elsewhere for identity and guidance.

Louis Theroux's 'Inside the Manosphere' has sparked a national conversation about what is shaping young men. It uncovers the dark world of hyper-masculine influencers. Without better alternatives, they then quickly become counter role models, promoting a misogynistic, conspiratorial and violent distortion of masculinity, leaving boys insecure, anxious and under impossible pressure to conform to a narrow, toxic view of what it means to be a man.

Northern Ireland is not immune to those challenges. Men accounted for 79% of suicides in 2024, and suicide remains our leading cause of death in males under 50. Our economic inactivity rate is higher than the UK average, especially amongst working-class men, and our young men are the most likely in the whole of the UK to watch porn. Evidence suggests that the type consumed is increasingly violent. We also face additional unique pressures as paramilitary groups continue to lure some young men into criminality, compounding their existing challenges.

Many young men are growing up without the guidance, purpose and mentors they need to thrive. The consequences are felt far beyond those individuals by families, communities, women and our whole society. We must ensure that those issues get attention, and we must deliver solutions, invest in youth and mental health services, support mentoring and strengthen online safety. Many of those young men lack aspiration and self-belief. They do not have anyone to champion them or even to listen. By acknowledging the crisis and committing to solutions, we can send a clear message: our young men are valued, and our society needs them.

Yesterday, I hosted an event to explore these issues with those in education, business, the PSNI and justice. These challenges cannot be solved by government alone; we need community groups, Churches, sports clubs and families to collectively consider solutions. Let me also be very clear: this is not a competition between boys and girls and women and men. It is about starting a holistic conversation on how we can build a society where everyone can flourish together. The conversation has just begun. Please join it.

Mr McReynolds: Just before Easter recess, I attended what I can describe as a crisis meeting at Ledley Hall in east Belfast. The focus that night was the recent decision by the Education Minister to remove ring-fenced funding for youth services across Northern Ireland. That decision is an absolute catastrophe for youth services here, and the anger and tension in the room that night was clear for all to see. The decision puts Ledley Hall at risk and could close the doors of an organisation that has been operating in east Belfast for 80 years and impact on close to 1,600 youth organisations across Northern Ireland. What does that impact look like? It jeopardises support for over 165,000 young people who use those services each year as well as the volunteers and staff who prop them up.

Following the meeting, I got home that night to urgently write to the Education Minister seeking an urgent meeting with Ledley Hall, the Youth Work Alliance and me to discuss the very real impact that his decision was going to have. Someone there that night told me not to get my hopes up, but I thought that it was a fairly standard request from an MLA to meet a Minister. For example, recently, the Infrastructure Minister met me with a day's notice. The Health Minister, just yesterday, met me about ADHD. Unfortunately, despite us advising in the request that we would make ourselves fully flexible due to his busy diary, he responded a week later that, on this occasion, he would be unable to attend, as if we had specified a date and time to meet when we had not. Quite frankly, I find that completely disrespectful to the issue at hand, to the concerns raised that evening and to the residents in the surrounding area that make regular use of Lesley Hall and other organisations like it.

Research from Queen's University found that 73% of 10-year-olds and 79% of 16-year-olds identified youth clubs and centres as places where young people will always feel mostly respected. Their impact is proven across the world, but what we have here is what I heard from many that night: a Minister focused on academia, elitism and the upper class, forgetting that working-class communities who use those services deserve to have their children and communities supported and invested in as well. Farming this out to the Education Authority, with the budgetary pressures that it is already under, will not lead to the potential increase in budget that the Minister previously told me about during Education Question Time. Instead, youth services will be absorbed, looked over and then simply forgotten about.

The independent review of education estimated that over £70 million should be put into youth services, yet their funding is now being gambled with. Youth services are not even asking for more money in this instance; instead, they are simply asking for their current level of ring-fenced funding to remain intact.

I call on the Education Minister to urgently reverse the decision, to see the benefit of youth services and to meet Ledley Hall, Youth Work Alliance and me to hear how the decision — let us be clear that it is his decision — will affect services and families across Northern Ireland.

Mr Martin: On Friday 27 March, Ryan Gray, a volunteer with K9 Search and Rescue, and his search dog, Max, were attacked by a group of 15 to 20 youths in Bangor. The police said the incident began after a verbal exchange, when the youths launched a vicious assault on Ryan and Max. Ryan suffered a fractured eye socket, loss of teeth and facial injuries that required hospital treatment. Max was kicked several times and left shaken. One 13-year-old boy and two 15-year-old boys were charged with ABH, which is very serious, and a 16-year-old girl was charged with affray and common assault.

I have worked with Ryan and the wider K9 team, which provided me with a fluffy K9 search dog, which sits on the desk in my office upstairs. The assault was completely unprovoked and completely unacceptable. Ryan, the wider K9 team and its chair, Joanne Dorrian, know that they have my full support and the support of my party.

Recently, the Justice Minister's party colleague the Alliance MLA for North Antrim tabled an amendment to the Justice Bill that would raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14, meaning that one of the boys would not even be charged with a serious offence. That is wrong. It does not support the victims of crime; in fact, it will erode confidence in the justice system. I have a son in P6 who is 10. He knows the difference between right and wrong and that actions always have consequences.

In conclusion, I make it clear to folk who wish to support Ryan and Max that a GoFundMe page has been established: if you want to donate to that, you can look it up online. My thoughts remain with that amazing charity and with Ryan and Max. I hope that they both recover fully from the injuries that they suffered that night in a vicious and unprovoked assault.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome Julie to the Chamber: I look forward to working with you, and I send my best regards to Gary as he undergoes his recovery.

In recent weeks, we have witnessed an exceptional surge of sporting success across Northern Ireland at local, national and international level. That success has been keenly felt in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where sporting ambition continues to be matched by sporting achievement. Dungannon Swifts' reaching the Irish Cup final again is testament to that momentum, as they seek to build on last season's remarkable success. I wish them well as they prepare to retain the cup at the final at Windsor Park on 2 May.

The past weekend delivered a truly historic, famous victory for Enniskillen Rugby Football Club's men's first team over Boyne RFC in Armagh on Saturday, sealing promotion to the All-Ireland League for the first time in the club's long and proud history. It was not just a win; it was a statement. The Skins produced a commanding, high-intensity performance, running out as 46 points to 8 points winners. In doing so, they demonstrated the dedication, discipline and sheer hard work that is put in week after week by players, coaches and back-room staff.

That victory caps what can only be described as a remarkable year for Enniskillen Rugby Football Club. Adding to the sense of history, the women's team also secured promotion to the All-Ireland League for next season. Having men's and women's teams competing at senior all-Ireland level is an extraordinary achievement, and one that firmly places Enniskillen RFC on the national rugby map.

The double promotion is a moment of real significance. It reflects years of careful planning, sustained investment and a belief in long-term development. It speaks of a humble club that has consistently exceeded its expectations, fuelled by the commitment of its volunteers, the loyalty of its supporters and, above all, the determination of its players.

The future is just as bright. That strength runs deep through the club, down to youth and academy level.

I also congratulate the Skins under-21s side, which defeated Rainey RFC at the end of March in an emphatic 22-7 victory, lifting the Club Academy Cup. That underlines the quality, skill and ambition that is coming through the ranks.

Enniskillen RFC is a historic club. It was the birthplace of women's rugby in the British Isles, and its success is a landmark moment not only for the club but for the entire Enniskillen and Fermanagh community. It is a source of enormous pride for everyone back home, and I record my sincere congratulations to all involved.

Ms Mulholland: I welcome the publication of the Music Venue Trust annual report for 2025, which gives us, for the first time, a detailed and sobering picture of the state of grassroots music venues in Northern Ireland.

We should be immensely proud of the sector. For a population of just under two million people, we have produced globally recognised artists across multiple generations. Every one of those artists started out somewhere, however. They started out in small local venues, learning their craft, building their confidence and connecting with audiences. Such venues are not just cultural spaces. As someone who volunteered for a decade before being employed by one such music venue, I know that they are economic contributors, community hubs and pipelines for future success. In 2025, just 17 grassroots music venues hosted over 22,000 performances across more than 3,700 events, attracting 460,000 visitors. That is an extraordinary amount of activity for such a small number of venues, and it translated into an £11·85 million contribution to our economy.

Behind those headline figures, however, lies a far more fragile reality. Only half those venues made a profit. Employment in the sector has dropped sharply, down 21% in just one year. Perhaps most striking of all, live music is now operating at a loss, with venues subsidising performances to the tune of £1·63 million simply to keep music on their stages. That means that, although cultural output is thriving, the business model that underpins live music is under severe strain. That matters, because, without intervention, we risk losing the very spaces that nurture our artists, animate our towns and cities and enrich our communities. We also risk losing opportunities, particularly for young people, to participate in music, be that as performers, workers or audience members.

The report, which is being launched in the Long Gallery today, shows clearly that grassroots venues are not just nice to have. Rather, they are essential infrastructure in our cultural and creative economy, and, like any infrastructure, support, strategic thinking and long-term planning are required. The question therefore for us as policymakers, and for the Minister for Communities and the Minister for the Economy, is this: what do we do next? How do we ensure that venues are sustainable? How do we recognise their value, not just culturally but economically? If we get it right, the cultural, social and economic returns will speak for themselves.

Mr Speaker: Two points of order were raised yesterday, and I will now deal with them briefly.

First, Pat Sheehan raised the issue of comments that the Minister of Education made in the Chamber on 23 March about allegations of bullying and in the contents of a written ministerial statement from him from 27 March. Mr Sheehan contrasted the contents of the two contributions, accusing the Minister of misleading the Assembly, and asked me to direct the Minister to come to the Chamber to correct the record. Mr Sheehan will be aware that the Speaker does not have the power to direct a Minister or a Member to come to the House to correct the record. I have reminded the House that it is not the role of the Speaker's Office to fact-check the contributions of Ministers or Members. Rather, it is for Members to pursue issues with any individual Member or Minister and for that Member or Minister to assess whether they need to correct the record of anything that has been said in the Assembly.

It is important to note, however, that written ministerial statements are part of official proceedings. On 23 March, the Minister gave a response, saying that he was happy to respond to any specific allegation. No specific allegation was forthcoming. On 27 March, the Minister issued his written ministerial statement, having reflected further, in which he returned to the issue to add to what he had said in the Chamber and provide further context and information to the House on the record.

That is a step that we have encouraged others to take in the past. Therefore, clarification of an issue is appropriate and, indeed, welcome. Whether Members are content with the details of the Minister's statements is a matter for them. I note that Mr Sheehan has tabled questions for written answer to the Minister on those issues. However, there is nothing further for me to address.

On the second point of order, Mr Gaston raised a point of order about whether Linda Dillon had breached the standards of debate by using the term "stupid" in exchanges with Mr Buckley. I was in the Chair yesterday, and our standards of debate are assessed in terms of context and not just words alone. Mrs Dillon was responding to sedentary comments from Mr Buckley, who was shouting at her:

Therefore, while I am not encouraging any Member to use the term "stupid" to refer to another, Mrs Dillon was using Mr Buckley's word back at him, albeit personalising it, which was inappropriate. I therefore called for order at the time. I am content, however, that, in the specific context, no further action needs to be taken.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is on not your second point but your first point. I note that Mr Sheehan's point of order, which was a further attempt to smear the conduct of the Education Minister, omitted the fact that the report fully exonerated the Minister from any allegation that was made. Before Easter, the Association of First Division Civil Servants (FDA), which is the union that represents some senior civil servants, including permanent secretaries, released a press statement following the written statement by the Education Minister, Paul Givan, in which it referred to the provisions of the ministerial code and was critical of the Minister's providing information to the Assembly. Can the Speaker confirm that the first duty of any Minister is, when asked, to provide information to the House and that, if there is any concern over the nature of the information that is provided, that is an issue for the Member who asked the question and not the Minister who answered it?

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for raising the issue. Members will note that, on numerous occasions, I have encouraged Ministers to come to the Chamber to provide accountability to the House, because the House is the accountable body to the people of Northern Ireland. What I expect of Ministers I also expect of senior civil servants. I do not expect any civil servant not to be open, frank, honest and accountable to the House, either through Ministers in the Chamber or directly to Members in Committees. At all times, I expect openness, honesty and frankness, not attempts to cover up or emasculate facts that the public are entitled to know. I would express surprise that any civil servant, in particular senior civil servants, would wish that that was not the case. Therefore, from the Chair this morning, I make it clear that we expect honesty, integrity and accountability from everyone, both those at ministerial level and the civil servants who work to the Ministers.

Let us move on.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Health. Mr Mike Nesbitt, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the Hospital Parking Charges Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a further debate at Final Stage. Further Consideration Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to 30 minutes for the debate. The Minister will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

Please, open the debate.

Mr Lyons: Article 5(1) of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 requires the Local Government Auditor to prepare and keep under review a code of audit practice that prescribes the way in which local government auditors carry out their functions in relation to district councils and other local government bodies. Article 5(2) of the 2005 Order provides that such a code shall embody what appears to the Local Government Auditor to be:

Article 5(3) provides that a code will not:

The existing code of audit practice came into force on 1 April 2021.

The Local Government Auditor consulted interested parties about the proposed draft code of audit practice 2026. The eight-week consultation period ended on 1 December 2025, and 12 responses were received as part of the consultation.
I therefore ask the Assembly to approve the Local Government Auditor's code of audit practice 2026 to come into force on 15 April 2026.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I rise as Chairperson of the Committee for Communities to support the motion to approve the Local Government Auditor’s draft code of audit practice 2026. As Members will be aware, under the Local Government Order 2005, the Local Government Auditor is required to prepare and keep under review a code of audit practice. The code prescribes the way that auditors carry out their functions in relation to district councils and other local government bodies, and it must be approved by a resolution of the Assembly every five years. The previous code was approved in 2021.

On 12 March, the Committee received a comprehensive briefing from the newly designated Local Government Auditor, alongside officials from the Audit Office and the head of local government finance at the Department for Communities. During that session, the Committee explored the substantive updates in the refreshed code. We noted that, following the consultation, which yielded 12 supportive responses, the code retained a principle-based approach. The auditor explained to the Committee that that approach is essential, as it provides the necessary flexibility and adaptability to respond to the changing nature of public-sector audit and evolving financial reporting standards.

Members of the Committee sought firm assurances about the robustness of the scrutiny regime applied to local councils. The officials provided reassurance that the standardisation of accounts directions ensures consistent reporting across all 11 councils. The Committee welcomed the fact that, unlike other jurisdictions, we do not currently face a backlog of local government audits in the North. Statutory target dates for draft and certified accounts are consistently met and are supported by regular and proactive engagement through the finance working group.

The Committee also questioned the mechanisms for accountability and enforcement. Members enquired about the consequences for governance failures and the specific powers available to deal with councils that fall foul of their statutory duties. The Local Government Auditor confirmed that significant judicial powers exist to address serious issues, such as wilful misconduct or items of account that are contrary to the law. It is a positive note that all 11 councils have recently received unqualified audit opinions.

Furthermore, the Committee raised the ongoing public interest in tracking the efficiencies that were promised during local government reform. Officials acknowledged that, while a comprehensive picture may take further time to fully crystallise, enhanced and highly detailed financial data is now being shared with the Audit Office, which, hopefully, will allow for better analysis of how each council spends its money and help to identify and promote cross-council efficiencies.

Finally, the Committee welcomed the additions to the 2026 code, which place a stronger emphasis on professional scepticism, the safeguarding of independence and a renewed commitment to conducting comparative value-for-money studies to share good practice across the sector. The Committee was satisfied that the draft code provides a transparent and proportionate framework for auditing our local government bodies. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Communities, I am content to recommend that the Assembly approve the Local Government Auditor’s draft code of audit practice 2026.

Mr McHugh: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the draft code of audit practice. Overall, it represents a positive and necessary step forward in how local government audit is carried out. The move to a principles-based, risk-led approach is the right one. It reflects the reality that councils operate in different contexts and require a degree of flexibility in how audit is applied. However, that flexibility must be balanced with consistency. If the code is to work effectively, there needs to be clarity in how the principles are applied in practice. Without that, there is a risk of uneven expectations across councils.

The broader scope of audit is also welcome. Moving beyond financial compliance to include governance, value for money and performance improvement aligns with what the public rightly expect. It is not enough for accounts to be technically correct. There must be confidence that public money is being used effectively. We have seen clearly, through the work of the Audit Office, why that broader focus is necessary. In its extraordinary audit of Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, published in July 2022, it found non-compliance with statutory requirements in land disposals, alongside inadequate procedures, weak internal controls, poor record-keeping and deficiencies in governance and oversight.

The focus on continuous performance improvement is positive, but we need to ensure that that remains proportionate and does not become an administrative burden that detracts from the delivery on the ground. The strengthened emphasis on public reporting and transparency is also to be welcomed, particularly where it leads to clear, practical recommendations that support improvement. Finally, the code's firm grounding in independence and professional standards is essential. Public confidence in the audit process depends on it. In summary, this is a balanced and modern framework. If applied consistently and proportionately, it will not only strengthen governance but help rebuild and sustain public trust where it has been tested.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the support from the Chairman and the Committee. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Speaker: Members, take your ease for a moment, because the Minister is not here for the next item of business.

Mr Sheehan: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit to the debate.

I call Pat Sheehan to open the debate on the Bill.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Some of my remarks will be in Irish during this contribution. Tá áthas orm an Dara Céim den Bhille um Oideachas trí mheán na Gaeilge (Plean don Lucht Oibre) a mholadh.

At the outset, I place on record my thanks to a number of people who have assisted me throughout this process and played a vital role in the development of the Bill. In particular, I thank Alison Belshaw for her professionalism and expertise at every stage. I also thank Frank Geddis and Barbara Love for their advice and support throughout.

Irish-medium (IM) education has flourished here, not because it was strategically planned for or consistently supported but because parents, teachers and communities were determined that it would flourish. For decades, the sector had to fight for very basic rights. One respondent to my consultation captured that history clearly:

Today, Irish-medium education is one of the fastest-growing sectors in our education system. However, underneath that growth lies sustained and serious workforce pressure. The aim of the Bill is to address that pressure in a structured and proportionate way.

We undertook extensive consultation. The online survey received 529 responses, 95% of which came from individuals directly connected to the sector, including principals, teachers, classroom assistants, early years practitioners, SEN professionals, parents and grandparents. The findings were decisive. Almost 98% agreed that the Department of Education needs to do more to facilitate and encourage Irish-medium education. Ninety-eight per cent agreed that the Department should identify and address workforce shortages, and 97% agreed that there should be a formal mechanism to assess how well the Department is fulfilling its statutory duty. Some 97·2% agreed that legislating in this area would enhance the right to education under the European Convention on Human Rights. One respondent put it plainly:

That firefighting culture is not sustainable. It is also disrespectful to a vibrant and growing section of our education system.

At the outset of this process, I wrote to the Minister to outline my intentions. The Minister advised that the Department is working on a strategy for Irish-medium education and that it is expected in mid-2027. A strategy is welcome, but strategies can be delayed and deprioritised and Ministers can change. Moreover, of course, mid-2027 happens to fall just after the next Assembly election. I am sure that that is entirely coincidental, but it reinforces the point that strategies tied to election cycles are not the same as statutory duties.

Is amhlaidh atá dualgas ar an Roinn cheana féin oideachas trí mheán na Gaeilge a spreagadh agus a éascú. Cuirtear an dualgas sin uirthi le hairteagal ochtó a naoi den Ordú Oideachais naoi déag nócha a hocht. Neartaítear an dóigh a gcomhlíontar an dualgas céanna leis an Bhille seo. Neartaíonn sé oibleagáid reatha, agus tugann sé creat feidhme di.

The workforce pressures facing the sector are now well documented. In a way, the Irish-medium sector is a victim of its own success.

Mr Baker: I thank the Member for giving way and commend him for bringing forward the important Bill. The fact that its scope goes beyond teachers is particularly welcome. Can the Member outline how important it is that we address the recruitment and retention of the wider workforce, including classroom assistants and educational psychologists?

Mr Sheehan: Well, it is absolutely vital. Every child has a right to be educated through the medium of Irish. Where some children have additional needs or require extra support or intervention, it is only right that those services are delivered by professionals who are fluent in the language so that their support is consistent with the language that the children are speaking and the fact that they are in an immersion situation within the Irish-medium sector.

Is maith is eol dúinn na brúnna atá ar an earnáil ó thaobh an lucht oibre de. Tá sé ar shlí a ráite gurb é bua na Gaelscolaíochta bunrúta a cuid fadhbanna.

Research from Professor Noel Purdy OBE, Dr Claire McVeigh, Dr Mark Ballentine and Dr Emilia Symington shows that Irish-medium teachers work on average 47 hours per week, significantly beyond directed time. Much of that time is consumed by translation, resource creation and compensating for the lack of Irish language materials and specialist support. There are also persistent shortages of Irish-speaking subject specialists, substitute teachers, classroom assistants and SEN professionals.

Restricted subject choice is emerging at post-primary level because recruitment is so difficult. In early years settings, particularly within the voluntary sector, staff instability and underfunding are placing enormous strain on naíscoileanna

, which are rightly described as the foundation of the sector.

Mrs Mason: Go raibh maith agat

for giving way. I commend the Member for bringing forward the important Bill. Can he outline just how important the early years sector is to the success and sustainability of Irish-medium education, and why it is really important that it is truly reflected in workforce planning?

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat.

Yes: the early years sector is absolutely foundational. That is the beginning of a child's entrance into an immersion setting. It is where they develop their relationship with the language. If we do not have a well-supported workforce in the nursery sector — the naíscoileanna

— the entire pipeline into the primary and post-primary sectors will be affected and undermined. That is why it is essential that workforce planning fully reflects early years, ensuring the recruitment, support and retention of staff at that critical stage. Access to staff is not an abstract issue. It affects class sizes, curriculum breadth, staff well-being and children's experience in school. Ní féidir an dualgas reachtúil leis an oideachas trí mheán na Gaeilge a spreagadh agus a éascú, ní féidir sin a chomhlíonadh ar dhóigh fhiúntach gan pleanáil struchtúrtha don lucht oibre.

The consultation looked at workforce planning not only as a policy issue but as a rights and equality issue. Concerns were raised about equality of access, particularly for children with special educational needs, Irish Traveller children and newcomer pupils.

Data suggests that children in Irish-medium education have similar rates of special educational needs as the wider school population. Significantly fewer have statements in place, however. That points to systemic gaps in access to appropriate assessment and support through Irish. My Bill is therefore about not just workforce planning but equality of opportunity and ensuring that children who are educated through Irish are not placed at a disadvantage.

The Bill is deliberately focused. It contains two clauses. It does not attempt to solve every challenge that faces Irish-medium education. Instead, it addresses one foundational issue, which is workforce sustainability. Clause 1 inserts new article 89ZA into the Education Order 1998. First, the new article requires the Department of Education to:

of the legislation's coming into operation. That ensures that planning will begin promptly and will not be open-ended.

Secondly:

Workforce planning must be routine, forward-looking and, at all times, responsive to projected growth and emerging pressures.

Thirdly:

That ensures transparency and allows for scrutiny by Members and the Committee for Education. Importantly:

the Minister must publish and lay a report on the implementation of that plan. Planning is one thing, but demonstrating delivery is another. That provision will ensure both.

Clause 1 also sets out consultation requirements. In preparing a workforce plan, the Department must consult schools that provide Irish-medium education, teachers, pupils, parents, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta (CnaG) and others as appropriate. That ensures that future plans are grounded in the lived experience of the sector.

Ina theannta sin, cuirtear ceangal ar an Roinn leis an chlásal an t-éileamh reatha agus an t-éileamh ionchais ar an lucht oibre a chur san áireamh, chomh maith le leordhóthanacht an lucht oibre reatha, earcaíocht, coinneáil agus forbairt an lucht oibre, na róil éagsúla taobh istigh den lucht oibre, agus gach cineál soláthair trí mheán na Gaeilge, lena n-áirítear suíomhanna luathbhlianta, bunscoile agus iar-bhunscoile.

Following consultation feedback, it was clear that the workforce plan must explicitly encompass early years practitioners, classroom assistants, SEN support staff and leadership and management roles. Retention and career progression must be addressed alongside recruitment.

For me, it is crucial — it is perhaps the most important aspect of the Bill — that the workforce plan contain measurable targets. Without measurable targets, strategy risks becoming aspiration. The Bill requires there to be benchmarks against which progress can be assessed. In essence, clause 1 creates the statutory framework for structured and accountable workforce planning.

Clause 2 is technical in nature. It provides that the Act will come:

It then sets out the short title of the Bill.

Some may ask why the Bill does not go further. During the pre-consultation engagement, there was a clear appetite for a broader and more comprehensive Irish-medium education Bill. That ambition is understood, and my initial objective was to introduce a wider-ranging and more comprehensive Irish-medium education Bill to deal with inequities in curriculum and assessment resources, capital infrastructure deficits and so on. However, the Speaker's Office was clear. The Members' Bills process requires a tightly defined scope, and rather than overextend and risk getting nothing, I made a deliberate, strategic decision to focus on the structural issue that underpins many of the other issues, and that is workforce sustainability.

Without teachers, classroom assistants, early years practitioners, SEN professionals and leaders, capital investment and curriculum reform, our wider strategy cannot succeed. What the Bill does is more fundamental. It ensures that decisions about recruitment, retention, professional development and workforce support are informed by structured planning, evidence, consultation and measurable targets. It creates a statutory framework within which meaningful interventions can be developed and delivered. Getting workforce planning right will lay the foundations from which the sector can continue to grow and flourish.

In conclusion, Irish-medium education has grown because of the determination and commitment of the Irish language community, but we cannot expect that growth to continue on the back of teacher burnout, recruitment crises and short-term firefighting. Is freagra tomhaiste, dírithe, cuí é an Bille i mo thuairim ar na dúshláin atá roimh an oideachas trí mheán na Gaeilge.

I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I will begin my remarks as Chair of the Education Committee, and then I will make some brief remarks in my capacity as an Alliance MLA. I do not plan to speak for long, as the Bill sponsor and Deputy Chair of the Committee has set out that the Bill is a short, two-clause Bill, and its policy intent and effect are clear and, to my mind, do not require a huge amount of commentary.

Since the institutions were restored, the Education Committee has heard evidence on multiple occasions from Department of Education officials and from CnaG on issues that are impacting on Irish-medium education. The themes that came through all those evidence sessions were clear. There have been some disagreements around the extent to which the Department's actions in the space have addressed those challenges effectively, but there is broad agreement on the nature of the challenges that are affecting Irish-medium education.

The Bill is clear and is focused on looking at the specific issue of workforce, and the Committee has heard evidence relating to that on a number of occasions. Research over a number of years has highlighted the clear need for the Department to intervene in that space. Workforce is one of the challenges. There are also accommodation challenges, curriculum and resource development challenges and gaps in continuing professional development (CPD), but, again, the Bill sponsor has set all those out.

Other Members will, no doubt, reference much of the evidence that is available to us in the space, but the CnaG research of 2023 on workforce and Irish-medium education is probably the most relevant. Its findings were clear that, among other recommendations, the Department needed to deliver a workforce plan for Irish-medium education. The Committee has not heard any evidence that that has been substantially developed, although our understanding is that a strategy is under way, which could come to us in 2027. However, on the specific issue of a workforce plan, there does not seem to be anything on the immediate, short-term agenda.

The research was clear that any workforce plan that is developed must address the current shortfalls in the Irish-medium education workforce and the likely and assessed future needs of the sector. The Bill expands and enhances that recommendation in more detail in what the plan must include, but, to my mind, it is very much in keeping with the recommendations from that particular research.

The Committee also heard about QUB's 'Fair? Shared? Supported?' research, which engaged directly with teachers and practitioners who are working in Irish-medium settings.

That, too, reflected clearly the concerns around the workforce as a key challenge. The report recommended a targeted recruitment programme to address workforce gaps. Again, it seems to me that the Bill is in keeping with that recommendation.

Through its SEN inquiry and other evidence sessions, the Committee for Education has heard evidence in relation to some of the SEN-specific aspects of the workforce challenges facing Irish-medium education. Again, the Bill sponsor set those out clearly in his opening remarks. The research points to potentially higher levels of special educational need in Irish-medium education, although the differences are maybe not terribly significant. Certainly, however, it points to an inadequate workforce available to support those needs, including a shortage of peripatetic teachers, educational psychologists who are competent in the Irish language, classroom assistants who are competent in the Irish language and speech and language therapists who are competent in the Irish language. Perhaps, if the Bill passes Second Stage today, we can assess at Committee Stage whether the Bill could benefit from any SEN-specific provisions to ensure that that is reflected in the workforce plan, given that it has been highlighted clearly to the Committee as a specific issue. It is clear that there is a SEN layer to the workforce challenge, and it will be important to make that point at that stage.

Beyond that, I have little to add to my remarks as Committee Chair, other than to say that we have heard significant evidence on the issue from the Department and from relevant stakeholders. It seems to me that the Bill is in keeping with the challenges that the Committee has learned about. It will be for the membership of the Committee, if the Bill passes Second Stage today, to assess whether it requires amendment and what scrutiny we need to apply in terms of hearing evidence from further stakeholders.

I will now speak briefly in my capacity as an Alliance MLA. I begin by welcoming the Bill, which is a straightforward and practical intervention to address an issue that, we are all aware, has been a long-standing challenge for the Irish-medium sector. The sector has grown substantially over the past number of years, but, because of the specific challenges that the Bill sponsor has set out, the workforce has not grown at the pace required to facilitate the capacity and scope that exists for further growth. As we reflect on that, I want to reference the Department's existing statutory duty to encourage and facilitate the development of Irish-medium education. As far as I am concerned, the Bill is a clear outworking of what that duty should already require the Department to do. If the development of Irish-medium education is hampered by workforce challenges, as it demonstrably is, the Department should already be stepping in to address that.

I would not want to say that no action is being taken in this space. The postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE) bursary scheme for Irish-medium students, which will start in September, is welcome, but it feels as though interventions have been needed for many years and have, in this case, perhaps come too late. For me, the statutory duty sits well with the Bill. It seems to me that the Bill is a fair outworking of that duty.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I thank the Member for giving way. I will, obviously, make my remarks later in the debate when it is my turn to respond. I appreciate that the Member rightly recognises that the Department has made progress in this area, not least as part of TransformED and through the bursary schemes. When we identified shortages in some subject-specific areas, Irish-medium education was one of those, and I approved the provision of a bursary scheme in order to create more opportunities to attract people into the workforce. In line with the statutory duty on the Department of Education, however, which the Member has referenced, when there were previous reductions in the number of students coming into teaching, they never fell on the Irish-medium sector. It was protected by the statutory duty while there were reductions in other sectors.

There is clear evidence that, because of the Department of Education during my time as Minister approving nurseries that became statutory, new school builds and bursaries, the Irish-medium sector has been able to expand, and I have happily been supporting its development. The question for Members, which I will pose it again later, is this: given the work that we are already doing and the existing statutory duty, why would we place a specific statutory duty for one sector that will not apply to any other sector when it comes to workforce issues, when those challenges are being felt in every sector and are not unique to one?

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his intervention. I risked it potentially being longer than my speech. I will try to pick up on the issues that he raised. I am happy to record that the Department has made interventions in this space. I am not trying to suggest that it has not, and I do not think that my comments suggested that. The bursary scheme is welcome, but there has been a historical issue and trend of the workforce in Irish-medium education not growing at the rate that is needed to support the demand across the board for access to Irish-medium education. As the Bill sponsor's remarks reflected, it is not just about teachers but about support staff, classroom assistants, speech and language therapists and ed psychs. It is the whole picture. That is why the Bill, to my mind, is welcome.

The Minister asked why such a duty should be placed with regard to the Irish-medium sector and not others. That is similar to some of the discussions that have been held on the integrated education side of things. There is an equity issue. If one sector is particularly impacted on by specific workforce challenges, as, I think, the Irish-medium sector is — it is different from any other sector in our system, because it requires a level of specialism and expertise to allow an immersive education experience to be delivered — it is the right and appropriate thing to do, when the statutory duty is there, to ensure that the workforce is there to meet the demand. We could get into comparing apples with pears if we said that a rule for one sector should be the same for everybody.

I will not add a huge amount other than to welcome the Bill. I look forward to seeing what transpires at the scrutiny stage. It is a short, straightforward Bill. Things may be done to enhance or amend it at Committee Stage, and we will wait to see about that. From my perspective, the impact of the Bill, if it is enacted, will ultimately depend on the quality, comprehensiveness and effective implementation of the plan that arises from it. We do not have the scope to go into the detail of exactly what that will need to look like — we would be getting ahead of ourselves to do so — but there is undoubtedly a resource implication. Resource will be required to implement a plan effectively, but I return to my comments in relation to the statutory duty. There is already a duty to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education, and the Bill does not change or depart from that; it simply puts on a statutory footing what seems to me to be a natural outworking of that statutory duty. If developing Irish-medium education requires an enhanced workforce, the Department should take the steps to deliver that. On that basis, I see no reason why it should cause undue concern for the Department, the Minister or other parties. I am therefore content to confirm my support for the Bill's passage at Second Stage today, and I commend the Bill sponsor for moving it.

Mr Martin: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill. I plan to make just a few short points and concentrate on whether there is a necessity for it. The Deputy Chair and the Chair of the Education Committee have commented on that, and it is probably where the tension lies.

Both Members who spoke mentioned the statutory duty under article 89 of the 1998 Order to encourage, facilitate and develop Irish-medium education. The Bill sponsor mentioned that in his opening remarks. That is already a substantial duty, which the Chair of the Education Committee referenced in his speech. Not every sector in Northern Ireland has the privilege of enjoying it. The Committee Chair mentioned the integrated sector: the Department has two duties towards that sector in Northern Ireland and one towards the Irish-medium sector. Neither the controlled nor the maintained sector in Northern Ireland enjoy such privileges. I understand and recognise the previous comments about other sectors facing specific issues — I hope to get to those — but I just point out that question of equity. That is important. Teachers and pupils across Northern Ireland should be aware of that.

The Department has acknowledged and recognised the challenges that the Irish-medium education (IME) sector faces. Those became clear in the consultation responses that the Bill sponsor referenced. The Minister will, no doubt, talk about this, but the Department is already addressing some of the workforce planning issues through the IME strategy, including retention, recruitment, pathways, capacity and some resource development. It is fair to say that the specifics of the IME sector are different from other sectors in Northern Ireland, in that that sector requires qualified teachers to be fluent enough in Irish to teach their specific subject. In answer to a question from the Committee Chair, the Minister referenced the bursaries that he introduced in, I think, 2025 to cover off Irish-medium teacher training and tuition fees, offering, I believe, £1,000 a month is offered to student teachers to encourage them in that area.

Structural issues were referenced by the sponsor and picked up on by the Committee Chair. There are other structural issues in teacher recruitment in Northern Ireland, and they are not specific to the IME sector. There is significant pressure across Northern Ireland to get maths teachers, chemistry teachers and physics teachers. Those are not peculiar to the IME sector; they are across —

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: — every sector in Northern Ireland.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I think that the Chair beat you to it. I will take an intervention from the Committee Chair and then one from Mr Sheehan.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. There is no argument from me at all: we have heard in Committee repeatedly about some of the challenges in recruiting teachers, particularly at post-primary specialist subject level. Does the Member agree that, if that specialist subject teacher is also required to be fluent in Irish, the challenge will be maximised for that sector and it is appropriate that, given the statutory duty, the Department should step in to address that?

Mr Martin: I will take the Deputy Chair's intervention at the same time.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for giving way. It is, effectively, two sides of the same coin. How many speech and language therapists dealing with children in the Irish-medium sector who have speech and learning difficulties are fluent in Irish? If that person can speak only English, that puts those children at a disadvantage.

Mr Martin: I accept both points, and I will try to address them. I have been on the Committee for only the better part of six months, so I am probably not up to speed with some of the things that the Committee has been dealing with. However, I accept the points, and, to a degree, there is an element of chicken and egg in that regard. The Member highlighted the added requirements for someone to come in and use speech and language therapy in that context. I hope that, whilst the language is immersive in a range of ways, if a child in an IME school really needed speech and language therapy, some way could be found to address that. While I accept those points, I simply make the wider point that the issue is not just purely structural, and that it is not just purely structural in IME.

On the wider issue, my understanding is that the Department has established an Irish-medium strategy steering group and a working group to address some of the issues that have been spoken about today. A range of organisations are involved, including CnaG, the Education Authority (EA), the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), the Controlled Schools' Support Council (CSSC), the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) — that is a lot of acronyms — and Altram, as well as Irish-medium principals from across the sector. My understanding is that work is ongoing in that area — I hope that the Minister will touch on that in his closing remarks — and that the issues around workforce pressures and strategies to alleviate those are being dealt with. I hope that those groups will solve some of the problems and issues that have been highlighted today by the Bill sponsor and the Chair of the Committee. We want all sectors in Northern Ireland, regardless of where they are, what language they speak or what faith tradition they come from, to feel valued and successful in their education.

In the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), the Bill sponsor looked at three options: the do-nothing option; the wait-to-see-what-the-strategy-has-produced option — I am paraphrasing it a little because I gave away my copy there — and the option to introduce additional primary legislation. It is my view and that of my party that the issues that have been identified and highlighted by the sponsor and the Chair of the Education Committee today and that have come out of the consultation are, in fact, best dealt with through the work that is already ongoing by the Department of Education. That is the most appropriate mechanism for addressing those issues.

Mr Burrows: When I opened my comments on Mr Baker's private Member's Bill yesterday, I said that there is nothing more important than our young people and making sure that they have the skills, support, infrastructure and buildings that allow them to thrive. That includes the Irish-medium sector. I was criticised by some when I divulged that a member of my family was trying to learn a bit of Irish so that she could order me a pint of Guinness when we were in Donegal. I have no objection to the Irish language. It is a lovely language.

The Bill sponsor is right: there are unique factors in the Irish-medium sector. If you need a speech and language therapist, they also need to speak Irish. If you are struggling to get a physics teacher or a chemistry or a maths teacher, Mr Martin is right: it is an additional burden. It is also an additional challenge to get male teachers. We do not talk enough about the lack of male teachers throughout our education sector in our schools and the lack of positive role-modelling that that brings.

Whilst I supported yesterday's Bill for it to go through to the next stage, my problem with this Bill is that there is an existing statutory duty. We should hold the Minister to account as to how well he is discharging his statutory duty through Assembly questions for oral answer, questions for written answer and the Education Committee. I will wait to hear what the Minister says when he gets to his feet and tells the Assembly what he is doing, but, for me, in the first instance, it is not good practice to bring a stand-alone Bill to deal with a pre-existing statutory duty.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way.

Mr Sheehan: When I set out to bring the Bill forward, one of the things that I had to do was to write to the Minister and ask him what he was doing. The Minister wrote back and said that he was developing a strategy that, he hoped, would be ready by mid-2027, after the election next year. The timeline may fall; the Minister may not be here; and there may be another Minister and so on. The important point is that the Speaker directed us to write to the Minister. When the response came back, the Speaker, who is the ultimate authority when it comes to private Members' Bills, decided that the Bill should go ahead, so it seemed to me that the Speaker felt that the argument that the Minister put up was not strong enough to block the private Member's Bill from going ahead. If you are talking about the processes and why a Bill should or should not go forward, there is one reason why it should go forward.

Mr Burrows: That is a creative reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank Mr Sheehan for his intervention. It is a bit like a judicial review: a judge may say that it is perfectly tenable to apply for a judicial review and for it to be heard, but that does not mean that you have to agree with the issue being forward for review. It was quite within process for the Speaker to say, "Mr Sheehan, bring your private Member's Bill". However, as legislators, we can still say, "I personally do not think that it is necessary".

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes, I will.

Mr Givan: I will talk about this further later. Part of the issue is that Members get to speak, and then a Minister provides a lot of information that Members have not had the chance to hear. That may be a procedural issue for the Assembly to consider.

The inference that Mr Sheehan has drawn is that the fact that a strategy is expected some time in 2027 suggests that nothing has been happening. When I intervened on the Chairman of the Committee, I outlined how we are discharging the statutory duty. When other sectors' numbers were being reduced, that did not apply to the Irish-medium sector. We have had positive approval of development proposals in the Irish-medium sector. We have had new builds in the Irish-medium sector. Under TransformED, we have a bursary for the Irish-medium sector. For the curriculum under TransformED, there is a distinct strand to improve the curriculum for Irish-medium education, because Irish-medium schools are being failed by the current curriculum. A whole series of evidence can therefore be produced to show how we are implementing the statutory duty, and Mr Sheehan has not reflected that yet. I cannot get involved in the decision that the Speaker would have made and whether the Speaker considered my correspondence with the Member. I do not even know whether it is appropriate for MLAs to discuss openly what are ultimately the Speaker's decisions, but that is something for the Speaker to decide on.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Minister for his intervention. I concur, and I was going to address that point. The key to making informed decisions during the debate would be to hear first what the Minister is doing to discharge his current statutory obligation and then make our points, but it is being done the wrong way around. I have, however, heard enough so far — I will listen to what the Minister has to say later — to know that there is a pre-existing statutory duty. I do not think that there is a need for fresh legislation to replicate that statutory duty, even if some think that there is.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I suspected that he was drawing his remarks to a close. On the theme of the statutory duty and the fact that mechanisms are in place to hold the Minister and the Department to account, does he agree that that statutory duty, as far as I understand it, came into effect in 1998? That was 28 years ago, and, as far as I am aware, we still have not had a workforce plan for Irish-medium education, and certainly not one that is regularly reviewed and, in a proactive and agile way, responds to the needs of the sector. That suggests that perhaps the statutory duty has not provided the impetus that it should have done to deliver on the issue.

Mr Burrows: I take the point that Mr Mathison makes in his intervention. Why it has not been done since 1998, I have absolutely no idea, but I have heard the Minister and will therefore wait to see what he says when he is on his feet later. He will outline the action that he is taking. He will put that on the record in Hansard. He has answered questions about a number of things that he is doing, and he has done so succinctly.

I will cut to the chase. I suspect that the Bill will proceed to Committee Stage, and the Committee will then scrutinise it. I do not believe that there is a need for another Member's Bill to deal with a pre-existing statutory obligation. We should be dealing with any omissions in the Minister's duties through scrutiny and accountability, not through creating more legislation. I imagine that any Member could put a Member's Bill to any Minister stating that a workforce plan for x, y and z is needed. On that basis, I am not minded to support the Bill, but I will listen to what the Minister has to say so that he can convince me and my party that he is discharging his important statutory obligation to the Irish-medium sector.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I thank the Member to my left for introducing the Bill. To echo the sentiment of the Chair of the Education Committee, we have heard extensively about the issue. We have heard a number of panels talk about the challenges in the Irish-medium sector and with workforce planning, so I really welcome the opportunity that the Bill presents.

We must celebrate the remarkable growth of the Irish-medium sector, which has seen a 400% increase in the past 25 years. Although the demand for Irish-medium education continues to climb, teachers and school leaders in the sector rightfully contend that they feel very strongly that funding has not been matched at an appropriate level by the Department.

As has been highlighted by CnaG, the Department has failed in many ways to address serious issues: teacher retention; the production of Irish language learning resources; support for examination marking; and the need to adequately address the challenge of providing specialised staffing for Irish language-speaking students and support for children with special educational needs such as dyslexia, including the provision of support for speech and language therapy and child psychology. Those prominent outstanding concerns remain.

Despite a lack of support and investment, our Irish-medium sector teachers and staff do incredible work, as I have seen at first hand in my constituency at Gaelcholáiste Dhoire in Dungiven. So many of the staff there are on the front line, keeping the language alive and allowing it to grow and flourish every day. As someone who did not grow up speaking Irish, I find it really inspiring and encouraging to see how such schools use the language every day, which they do with our young people in such a fun and engaging way.

The workforce does that because of its incredible grá

Its workers have a love of the language, and they bring that energy, love and effort to the classroom every day. They have a passion for our young people and a true commitment to revitalising the language in the classroom and on this island.

Whilst I recognise that many in the Department of Education equally cherish the language and work hard to support the sector, we feel strongly that that is not adequate and that more must be done to invest in our workforce and ensure that it is well supported. The Irish language has the same rights as the English language and must be treated accordingly.

Minister, I genuinely welcome your work on the Irish language. You committed funding to the Scoil Spreagtha scheme after meeting me and my colleague Patsy McGlone. I welcome the fact that, right now, we see children across the North learning the language in English-speaking classrooms. I wish that we had had that when I was at school; I would have absolutely loved it.

I will make a broader point, however. Now is the time to comprehensively deal with the real workforce challenges in the sector. Across the Irish-medium sector, staff whom I have spoken to — teachers and classroom assistants — feel frustrated and overlooked. Today's conversation is so welcome because it is about considering the investment that they will need in order to flourish.

As is well known, a disproportionate number of our Irish-medium staff teach in buildings that have long seen better days and mobile classrooms that are long past their sell-by date. They do so while delivering a first-class education, disproportionately often to children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. There are more children in receipt of free school meals in Irish-medium schools than in English language schools.

It is perhaps less well known that children in Irish-medium schools are disproportionately likely to have special educational needs. Despite that, they lack the specialised language support that they so desperately need. Fundamentally, that is not a stand-alone education issue but an equality issue.

I also note that many talented Irish-speaking teachers often go over the border to the South, because they are better paid there, and who can blame them? Here, it is time to look at the long term to ensure continuity of Irish-medium education.

The Minister has stated clearly his aims to reduce educational inequality, to advance achievement and to support teachers across the North. We say today that the Irish-medium sector must not be forgotten, that its particular needs must be recognised and that the Assembly must lay down a framework that will finally address its concerns.

Parents, teachers and pupils in the Irish-medium sector across the North are listening to the debate today, expecting to be treated and supported in the same way as they would be in other sectors. By advancing the Bill, we will go one step further towards addressing their needs. It is important that we do so without delay.

In closing, I will be frank in looking at the wider neglect of the Irish-medium sector. Our teachers across the North are in classrooms that are falling apart. When you speak to teachers and school leaders in the north-west in particular, you hear that there is so much mould in the classrooms, which have been there since the 1970s — there are also challenges in west Belfast — and that is not fair. Our teachers and school leaders show up every day wanting to share their learning and educate our young people, but they are in facilities that are not appropriate and that desperately need investment.

The SDLP will support the Bill at Second Stage and welcome it as an opportunity to talk about the ongoing challenges in the Irish-medium sector. Thank you very much, Pat, for introducing it.

Mr Baker: I commend my friend and colleague for introducing this important legislation. His passion for and commitment to the Irish language has not gone unnoticed in my constituency or further afield. Before I start my contribution, I will say this: I said, yesterday, that we all have the opportunity to close gaps by introducing legislation in areas that Departments may not be prioritising or on issues that are falling through the gaps. It is important that the opportunity to do that exists and that it is utilised by all Members.

The Identity and Language Act 2022 was a significant milestone in the long struggle to achieve historic recognition of the Irish language in the North. It followed many years of campaigning and is a credit to the vibrant, growing and thriving Irish language community across the island, which never gave up and the members of which made their voices heard. That is of particular importance, given that Irish speakers have been discriminated against, excluded and ignored by the state. The Identity and Language Act was not, however, the end of the journey. The work to enhance provision for the Irish language in our society goes on, and Sinn Féin will play its part in driving that forward.

Irish-medium education is one of the fastest growing sectors in the North, but growth has outpaced workforce planning, leading to concern about teacher supply, training routes and specialist support. The Bill will formalise a strategic approach to addressing serious and persistent staffing shortages across all roles, including teachers, classroom assistants and support staff. During the consultation process, a number of issues were highlighted that are specific to the Irish-medium education workforce. I will focus on special educational needs provision and assessment.

SEN provision in Irish-medium education is critical. Pupils learning through Irish face higher levels of identified need but do not receive as much appropriate support as their English-medium peers. The gap is structural, linguistic and systemic, and it directly affects equity of access and educational outcomes. Irish-medium schools have a higher proportion of pupils with SEN than English-medium schools do. A 2024 report highlighted the fact that, for the 2023-24 academic year, 22·5% of Irish-medium pupils were recorded as having SEN, versus 19·1% in English-medium settings. At post-primary level, that gap widens to 30·1% versus 18·2%. Despite those facts, Irish-medium pupils are less likely to receive a formal statement of SEN. That disparity is due, partly, to the lack of assessment tools that are available in the Irish language and the absence of specialised staff in statutory support services, such as educational psychologists who are fluent in Irish, speech and language therapists who can assess bilingually and SEN support staff who are trained in an immersion context. There is no formal structure to ensure linguistic alignment between pupils and specialised professionals. Consequently, Irish-medium pupils with SEN can be and have been misidentified or missed completely, leading to delayed interventions, inaccurate diagnoses and reduced access to statutory support.

I will finish on this point. This happens regularly across the board, but has happened a lot in my constituency. When children are learning through the medium of Irish, particularly in naíscoil

, and additional needs are identified but early intervention is not in place, parents are advised to take their children out of that setting and put them into English-medium settings.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I recognise that issue and declare an interest as the parent of a child who went through Gaelscoil Uí Néill in Coalisland and is now in the Irish-medium sector, attending St Joseph's Grammar School in Donaghmore. That has been a constant issue. Does the Member agree that it puts constant pressure on the teaching staff and school leaders, who feel that they have to do extra work in order to ensure that those children are able to stay in their school? In Gaelscoil Uí Néill, the principal did Makaton with all the children in his school from day dot. He put in extra work every day, as did his teaching staff and classroom assistants. That is unfair.

Mr Baker: It is unfair. You have to ask yourself, "Where else does that happen?". It is very much an equality issue. That is where I want to leave it today: it is an equality issue. I commend the Member for introducing the Bill. It is so important.

Mrs Guy: No headsets are required for my contribution. Unfortunately, I have no Irish, or very little; not enough to have the confidence to say it in any remarks today. I think that I can count to 13 confidently, but I would not get much further than that.

The Irish-medium sector has seen significant growth over the past decade. In 2001, there were about 1,600 pupils, and, in 2025, there were over 7,000. That is a real testament to the dedication of those working in the sector. When I joined the Education Committee, one of the first events that I attended was at St Mary's, where I got to see first-hand and learn about the value of immersive education. It goes beyond just learning a language. There is evidence of how it benefits memory, problem-solving and creativity, and, of course, it is essential in order to allow the Irish language to continue to grow and thrive.

The sector faces challenges that are similar to those faced by every sector across the North. However, reports from Stranmillis University College and Queen's University Belfast, and the 'A Fair Start' report, outline the fact that the Irish-medium sector faces specific and significant workforce and resource pressures. Given that that is the case and that, as has been noted today, the Department has a statutory duty under article 89 of the Education Order:

I will vote for the Bill to go through to Committee Stage.

I fully accept that the Department is continuing to work on the development of a strategy for Irish-medium education, which is due in 2027. I imagine that that means that some will say that a workforce plan is not required, which we have heard today, as it may come forward as part of that strategy. However, we have seen strategies come forward that exclude key facets, with things being delayed even when they are in a strategy, and the Bill addresses that. There is enough here to say that I understand why the Bill has been introduced, and I have no issue with its coming forward in that context.

From my reading of the Bill as introduced, I do not see any significant issues with it. I look forward to hearing evidence at the Education Committee. I would like to better understand what will be delivered through the workforce plan and what the sector really needs it to deliver. Clause 1 states that the Department must take into account areas such as:

Given that there are no specific interventions required in the plan, I would like to know what confidence there is that, as it stands, it will deliver what is needed for the workforce. For example, the Stranmillis research on workload in the Irish-medium sector made clear recommendations on the expansion of initial teacher training and the development of an apprenticeship route for classroom assistants. I understand and accept that the intention of the legislation is simply to establish a statutory framework in order to ensure that whatever actions the Department takes are timely and informed by robust consultation.

I look forward to working with colleagues and the Irish-medium sector to ensure that the Bill can progress. I hope that it makes a difference.

Mrs Mason: I welcome the introduction of this important legislation here today by my colleague Pat Sheehan. The work that he has done not just on the Bill but for the Irish-medium sector over many years is truly commendable. The Bill reflects the ambition and determination of the Irish-medium sector. A sector that has grown, expanded and delivered for children, often without the support that it deserves. The reality is that Irish-medium education has not been carried by the system; it has been carried by people — passionate educators, committed parents and a workforce that continues to go above and beyond day in, day out. That goodwill can only stretch so far.

Nowhere is the pressure more acute than in early years. Early years is not just the starting point of education; it is the foundation from which everything flows. Yet, time and again, I hear from Irish-medium childcare providers, early years settings, our naíscoileanna

and organisations such as Altram that they are struggling to recruit and retain staff. They are trying to build immersive language environments for our youngest children at the very stage where language development is most critical, but they are doing so with limited workforce support and very little strategic planning. If we do not get early years right, we are setting the entire system up to struggle, because that is where the pipeline into Irish-medium primary and post-primary education starts, and that is why the Bill matters. It allows us to finally start building the workforce across the entire Irish-medium sector, including early years, which is so often overlooked but is fundamental, because, without that foundation, growth simply will not be sustainable.

Alongside that, we need to talk about those who are too often overlooked in the conversations: our classroom assistants and our special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs). Let us be clear: they are not an add-on to the system; they are its backbone. They sit beside a child who is struggling to communicate, and they calm, support and encourage, often quietly and without recognition. They are the ones who know those children inside out. In Irish-medium settings, they are doing all that through the medium of Irish, supporting not just learning but language acquisition, confidence and inclusion. Yet, despite the vital role that they play, they are too often undervalued, under-supported and left out of workforce planning, and that has to change.

We also need to speak honestly about children with additional needs, because the consequences of the workforce gaps are much more profound for those children. I hear from parents who are already fighting every day to get the support that their child needs, only to face an additional barrier because that support is not available through the medium of Irish. Children are assessed, supported and sometimes misunderstood because the support is not delivered in the language that they are learning through. That is not just a gap in provision; it is a failure to meet those children where they are, and it places an unfair burden on the families who are simply trying to do what is best for their child, because, for a child with additional needs, communication is everything, and, when the communication is not in the right language, we are not giving the child the very best chance to succeed.

That is why the conversation about the workforce matters so much. It is about having the right people with the right skills, in the right language, to properly support every child. When I speak to school staff in my constituency of South Down — in Downpatrick and Castlewellan — I see the growth, energy and commitment to Irish-medium education, but I also hear the same message time and time again that the system is not keeping up. There is a clear shortage not just of teachers but of the wider workforce, including early years staff, classroom assistants and Irish-speaking allied health professionals, and the consequences are real. Children are being supported through a language that is not their language of learning; staff are being stretched to breaking point; and families are worrying about whether the support that their child needs will be there. That is not equality.

The Minister has pointed to the forthcoming Irish-medium education strategy as a reason for the Bill not being required. However, there is little confidence that another strategy will be delivered — certainly not in this mandate — and it will not be as concise and to the point as the Bill. I am not saying that nothing is happening in the Irish-medium area, but it is not enough to address the acute problems. In the meantime, the sector is left waiting, while the workforce pressures grow, children go without the support that they need and staff are stretched to breaking point. They are tired of it. They are tired of being treated as an add-on and of being something that is always promised for tomorrow but never prioritised today. The strategy will not recruit a classroom assistant or train an early years worker, and it will not put an Irish-speaking language therapist in front of a child who needs that support today. However, the Bill will, and that is why it matters.

Whilst the Bill is narrow in scope, it is about much more than numbers or workforce planning; it is about recognising the reality on the ground, valuing the people who hold the system together and finally matching the growth of Irish-medium education with the support that it needs. No child should be disadvantaged because of the language that they learn through, and no workforce should be expected to carry a system without the backing of the system itself.

If we are serious about equality, we must be serious about investing time and effort in the people who make it possible, and the Bill is a step in the right direction. I, therefore, welcome the Bill as a significant step towards bringing about a workforce that can nurture and sustain the growth of Irish-medium education.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. The Member mentioned equality. I agree with her, completely, that equality is incredibly important. Does she agree that equality across all sectors of Northern Ireland's schools — controlled, maintained, integrated and Irish-medium — is important?

Mrs Mason: Absolutely, but, as has already been pointed out, Irish-medium education is on the back foot. That is why we are trying to bring it in line with the rest of the sectors.

As I was saying, I welcome the Bill as a significant step towards bringing about a workforce that can nurture and sustain the growth of Irish-medium education, thus ensuring that the children in that sector are placed on an equal footing with the others. I urge everyone to support the Bill.

Ms Reilly: Before I start my speech, I take the opportunity — the first that I have had — to welcome Julie to the House. I congratulate her on her new role. I wish Gary and your family the very best on what must be a very difficult path. We are thinking about you and Gary. I look forward to working with you.

Tá áthas an domhain orm tacú leis an Bhille atá á mholadh ag mo chomhghleacaí, Pat Sheehan. Cad é croí an ábhair seo? Tá, gur rud an-bhunúsach ach an-tábhachtach é an bille seo. Bille a bhaineann le rud simplí amháin agus is é sin an phleanáil. B’fhéidir go gcuireann an fás faoin Ghaelscolaíocht iontas ar chuid de na daoine, ach ní chuireann sé lá iontais ormsa. Tá athbheochan, paisean agus grá don teanga amuigh ansin. Is é an rud a deirtear agus a iarrtar sa Bhille seo ar an Roinn Oideachais ná go gcaithfidh sé coiscéim a choinneáil linn.

Leagann an Bille dualgas dlí ar an Roinn a machnamh a dhéanamh, breathnú ar an éileamh atá ann, agus a chinntiú go bhfuil an lucht oibre againn le freastal air. Ní hamháin anois, ach as seo amach sna blianta atá romhainn. Ar ndóigh, baineann sé sin le múinteoirí. Ach tá i bhfad níos mó ná sin i gceist agus tá sé tábhachtach sin a lua. Baineann sé le cúntóirí ranga. Baineann sé le hoibrithe luathbhlianta. Baineann sé le foireann tacaíochta, le soláthar riachtanas speisialta oideachais, le síceolaithe oideachais, agus le gach duine a bhfuil ról acu in oideachas ár bpáistí.

Tá a fhios ag gach aon duine a bhfuil eolas acu ar an earnáil nach ar mhúinteoirí amháin a fheidhmíonn scoileanna. Is ar fhoirne a fheidhmíonn siad; is ar phobail a fheidhmíonn siad; agus is orthu sin atá an Ghaelscolaíocht bunaithe. Tá sí bunaithe ar phaisean. Tá sí bunaithe ar fhuinneamh. Tá sí bunaithe ar dhaoine a chreideann go láidir go bhfuil luach agus fiúntas inár dteanga. Sin an bonn ar cruthaíodh an earnáil agus an Gaeloideachas air.

An rud atá de dhíth ar an earnáil anois ná tacaíocht fhiúntach le cur leis an fhás sin. Tá an t-éileamh ann. Fíor-éileamh atá ann agus tá sé ag méadú go gasta. Tá an fás sin le feiceáil go soiléir, nó tarraingníodh aird sna meáin ar na mallaibh go bhfuil fás 400% ann i líon na bpáistí atá ag freastal ar an Ghaeloideachas ó 2001 a bhí ann. Ní fás suarach é sin, ní hea, ach forbairt ollmhór. Taobh thiar de na huimhreacha sin tá tuismitheoirí agus teaghlaigh a roghnaigh an Ghaelscolaíocht dá bpáistí.

Mar is eol daoibh uile anseo, mar gur luaigh mé roimhe — agus tá mé fíorbhródúil as —gur tháinig mise mé féin tríd an Ghaelscolaíocht. D’fhreastail mé ar an naíscoil, chuaigh mé go Bunscoil Phobal Feirste, agus ansin ar aghaidh go Coláiste Feirste. Nuair a d’fhreastail mé ar Choláiste Feirste, bhí thart ar 350 againn ann. Tá breis is 1,000 dalta ag freastal ar an scoil chéanna inniu. Tá an scoil lán go doras. Ní háibhéil ar bith sin. Tá sí ag borradh léi, rud a léiríonn go bhfuil gá leis an dara campas. Is léir uaidh sin gur sin an bealach a bhfuil an earnáil ag dul.

D’oibrigh mo mhamaí mar chúntóir ranga i mBunscoil an tSléibhe Dhuibh ar Bhóthar na Carraige Báine. Tá mo dheirfiúr ag obair mar chúntóir ranga riachtanas speisialta oideachais anois ar Bhóthar Seoighe. Tá cairde de mo chuid ag obair mar mhúinteoirí i naíscoileanna, i mbunscoileanna agus i meánscoileanna. Tá siad mar chuid de ghluaiseacht atá ag tacú le páistí, ag tacú le teaghlaigh, agus ag neartú ár dteanga lá i ndiaidh lae.

Mar sin de, nuair a labhraímid faoi phleanáil lucht oibre, táimid ag neartú na hearnála, táimig ag neartu na n-oibrithe agus na ndaltaí. Táimid ag caint faoina chinntiú go mbeidh na deiseanna céanna ag an chéad ghlúin eile de pháistí a thiocfas isteach sa Ghaelscolaíocht.

Aithnítear sa Bhille seo an rath atá ar an Ghaelscolaíocht agus tacaíonn sé leis. Cinnteofar leis nach gcuirfidh an easpa pleanála cúl ar an fhás. Tá teachtaireacht shoiléir chugainn ann nach athsmaoineamh í an Ghaelscolaíocht. Is cuid ríthábhachtach dár gcóras oideachais í atá ag fás léi, agus a bhfuil cothrom na Féinne tuillte aici. Mar sin de, tacaím leis an Bhille, agus impím ar Chomhaltaí tacú leis chomh maith.

Ms Finnegan: Tacaím leis an Bhille seo. Is reachtaíocht é atá ciallmhar, riachtanach agus atá i bhfad thar téarma. Tá ceist shimplí i gcroílár an ábhair seo: an ndéanfaimid pleanáil cheart do thodhchaí na Gaelscolaíochta, nó an bhfágfaimid faoin chinniúint í? Tá an Ghaelscolaíocht ag fás ar fud an Tuaiscirt. Ní raibh riamh oiread tuismitheoirí ag roghnú na Gaelscolaíochta dá bpáistí, agus tá pobail á tógáil ón bhun aníos, nó tá bród orthu as ár dteanga. Feicim é i mo thoghcheantar féin. D'fhreastail mo thriúr páistí féin ar Ghaelscoil Phádraig Naofa i gCrois Mhic Lionnáin, atá ar cheann de na Gaelscoileanna rathúla ar fud an Iúir agus Ard Mhacha. Ní hé amháin go bhfuil na scoileanna sin ag cur oideachas roimh ár n-aos óg, is amhlaidh atá siad ag cur leis an chiall atá acu dá bhféiniúlacht agus leis an mhuinín atá acu astu féin. Níl aon teorainn leis na buntáistí.

Despite that success, however, the workforce needed to sustain the sector is simply not there. We see teacher shortages, limited subject choice and staff under real pressure, and children, particularly those with additional needs, struggle to access support in their native language. That is not sustainable and not acceptable. Some will point to strategies that are in development, but strategies come and go, Ministers change and priorities shift.

What the Bill does is different. It places a legal duty on the Department of Education to plan, act and report. It moves us from short-term thinking to long-term accountability. The demand for action is clear. More than 500 consultation responses were received, with overwhelming support for addressing workforce shortages and strengthening Irish-medium education. That is not a marginal issue but a clear mandate.

Baineann sé seo le cearta: an ceart chun oideachais, agus an ceart chun rochtain a fháil ar oideachas trí do theanga féin. Mura bhfuil an lucht oibre ann, níl na cearta sin á mbaint amach go hiomlán.

That is not bureaucracy; it is responsible governance.

Tá an Ghaelscolaíocht ag troid le blianta fada ar son an chomhionannais. Tá an Bille seo ag iarraidh na hiarrachtaí sin a shárú. Tá sé in am pleanáil a dhéanamh. Tá sé in am infheistíocht a dhéanamh. Tá sé in am beart a dhéanamh. Impím ar Chomhaltaí tacú leis an Bhille.

Mr Gaston: The Bill is not about fairness. It is a Bill about special treatment and elevating one section of our education system above others. In light of the provisions in the Bill, let me spell out why I say that.

Clause 1 places a legal duty on the Department to produce an Irish-medium education workforce plan. The only legislation for our schools that even comes close to that is the Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Let us look at what that Act states. It requires the Department to "encourage and facilitate" integrated education, but it does not require a workforce plan.

Clause 2 of the Bill sets out what the plan must contain. There must be an assessment of the current workforce, an assessment of future need and proposals to meet that need, not for all schools and not for every child but just for Sinn Féin's special category of school — schools in the Irish-medium sector — which, as the Bill shows, it wants to elevate above all others.

Clause 3 then requires the Department to consult specified bodies in preparing that plan. Again, that is not general good practice; it is a statutory consultation tied to a single sector. Where is the equivalent legal requirement for controlled schools, maintained schools, special educational needs and integrated schools? Again, they are treated as secondary at best, not worthy of consideration in the Bill.

Clause 4 requires the Department to publish the plan and report on its implementation. The Bill wants us to move from planning to accountability mechanisms in law — accountability, but only for one sector.

Clause 5 completes the picture, because it requires the Department to review and update the plan at defined intervals. That is not simply a one-off exercise; it is a rolling statutory planning cycle being imposed for one sector and one sector alone.

Let us be clear about what the Bill does. Under clause 1, the Department must produce a plan. Under clause 2, the Department must include specific workforce detail. Under clause 3, the Department must consult in a prescribed way. Under clause 4, the Department must publish and report. Under clause 5, the Department must repeat the process. That is precisely what the Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 does not do. It sets direction; this Bill sets instruction. Therefore, a question arises: if it is right to legislate to that level of detail for Irish-medium education, why is it not right to do so for the rest of the education system?

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Where is the statutory workforce plan for the controlled sector? I am happy to give way.

Mr Baker: I am just wondering where the TUV's workforce plan is for other sectors that, you feel, are being discriminated against. Yesterday, you said that you were not an MLA at the time and missed some deadlines. However, your predecessor was here: where were his ambitions?

Mr Gaston: Here, we have deflection. I was hoping that the Bill sponsor would come in to alleviate some of my concerns, but, no, Mr Baker decides to rise to deflect from the questions and concerns that I have raised.

Sinn Féin is deliberately, in the Bill, trying to elevate one sector over the others. Mr Baker, where is the legislative framework for SEN staff? I know that you are passionate about that issue. The Assembly went into recess a number of weeks ago, so where is the legislative framework? Why is not contained in your mate Mr Sheehan's Bill? Where is an equivalent duty placed on the Department for all the education sectors? I am happy to give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr Sheehan: First, thanks for giving way. Secondly, if you have been listening to the debate, you will have heard that there are unique challenges for the Irish-medium sector that do not exist in any other sector. That is part of the rationale behind the Bill: to bring the Irish-medium sector up to an equal footing with all other sectors. It is not about discriminating against other sectors.

I suppose that I would like to ask a question, because I honestly do not understand why there is such hostility from you and your party not just towards the Irish-medium education sector but towards the Irish language in general and anything connected to Irish culture. Why does that hostility exist in that way? It also exists in the DUP.

Mr Gaston: The hostility that you talk about exists because the Irish language has been weaponised against unionism. You can put your fingers in your ears and close off unionist concerns, but Irish creates a chill factor. There are polls that back that up.

You talk about discrimination, Mr Sheehan: that is exactly what the Bill creates by prioritising Irish-medium education over all other sectors. There are challenges in all sectors in education. You sit on the Education Committee: you should know that. I sit on a board of governors. I am acutely aware of the problems that exist in all sectors in the education system. What you want to do in your Bill is not to bring Irish-medium education up to the same level but to elevate it above every other sector.

Ms Reilly: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not understand how it is discriminatory to ask that a workforce, including child psychologists and speech and language therapists, be planned for, particularly when it comes to children with SEN. Is it not discriminatory not to plan ahead and make sure that those people are in place for children coming through Irish-medium education?

Mr Gaston: Where is that request for the rest of the sectors?

Ms Reilly: Bring it forward.

Mr Gaston: I am not the one who has introduced a private Member's Bill; Mr Sheehan is. Where is that request for the rest of the sectors? That is why I say that it is discriminatory. Today, the House must decide whether it is content to move from supporting sectors in principle to designing and directing one sector above the others.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. I say firmly that there is nothing to fear from the Irish language. Members of the Protestant community have been some of the biggest advocates of protecting our language and heritage. There is a saying in Irish: ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine. While it translates literally as "in each other's shadow we live", metaphorically, it means that we rely on each other for shelter from the storm. Would it not be better if that philosophy and approach to our shared language were to be adopted by your party and unionism in general? It is a language that is owned by us all.

Mr Gaston: I have no problem with the Irish language, but I have a problem with what, as the Bill eloquently shows and exposes, Sinn Féin and nationalism are trying to do, which is to put Irish above English. That is what it is all about. In response to the junior Minister, where are the workforce plans for the rest of the sectors?

Ms Reilly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way. Point me to those plans.

Ms Reilly: Why do you not bring those proposals forward for the other sectors? The Bill is about a plan for Irish-medium education. If you want one for other sectors, bring it forward.

Mr Gaston: Once again, I say that you have introduced this private Member's Bill. You have chosen to elevate Irish above the rest of the sectors. You do not have a response to that, apart from saying, "Oh, why do you not bring those plans forward?". Do we then bring plans forward for each sector? Is it not up to the Education Minister to bring a plan to the House that puts everybody on a par with one another and on an equal footing, instead of what Mr Sheehan is trying to do? It will be no surprise, because of what he is attempting, which is to prioritise Irish-medium education above all other sectors and make it a special case, that I will not support the legislation moving to the next stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Education to respond to the debate.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

I acknowledge the intent behind the private Member's Bill, and I recognise the many teachers, school leaders, classroom assistants, other support staff, parents, pupils and representatives of sectoral bodies who have contributed to discussions about the future workforce needs of Irish-medium education. Their commitment to ensuring high-quality education through the medium of Irish is clear, and I record my appreciation of their ongoing work and dedication.

I have visited many Irish-medium schools. Colleagues in the Assembly invited me to do so, and I thoroughly enjoyed those experiences. I was made very welcome, and I admired the education that was being provided to those young people. I have sought to address concerns that have been brought to me by the Irish-medium sector when it comes to education and the sector's needs, as you would expect any Education Minister to do for any sector. Those needs vary, and I will outline a range of issues on which the Irish-medium sector has concerns, as well as how we seek to support it.

As a Minister, I have been actively involved in taking decisions to provide development proposals for nursery provision. I have also actively taken decisions to move forward new builds for the Irish-medium sector. I know that the narrative of having a DUP Education Minister who is proactively engaged with and is encouraging towards Irish-medium education does not always suit some Members in the House. At times, I have listened to political comments made by some commentators and some in the House, and I have said to myself, "That must not be relevant to the Department of Education", because I do not think that Members will find any evidence of any form of inequality of treatment of the Irish-medium sector by me as Minister of Education.

Mr McNulty talked about unionism collectively and broadly having nothing to fear. This unionist Minister has absolutely nothing to fear, nor have I shown any concerns in that respect. Indeed, Cara Hunter rightly said that, when she and her colleague Patsy McGlone came to me about a particular project — Scoil Spreagtha — that had experienced funding cuts, asking me to engage in finding a solution in order for that organisation to continue to provide a taster of Irish for pupils in English-speaking schools, I proactively engaged and found a solution and provided funding of some £100,000 to that organisation. Therefore, I am content that I have a track record that demonstrates my bona fides as a Minister for all when it comes to Irish-medium education.

I will give way to Mr McNulty.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for giving way. We were very grateful for your interventions in respect of Scoil Spreagtha and for your continuing support for that scheme and the competence with which you acted to save that scheme and protect it going forward. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr McNulty. Forgive me for not noting that you were at that meeting and made the case for the organisation as well.

Today's debate gives us an opportunity to consider the strengths and the pressures in Irish-medium education and to reflect on how the Executive and the Department can best support that important and growing sector. Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, let me signpost briefly what I intend to cover. I will speak first about the aims of the Bill. I will then address the current workforce challenges in Irish-medium education. After that, I will outline the work that the Department is already taking forward, including the development of a dedicated Irish-medium education strategy. Finally, I will set out my initial view on the legislative proposals that are before the Assembly today.

At its core, the Bill seeks to place a statutory duty on the Department to prepare and publish a workforce plan for Irish-medium education and progress reviews against it. It proposes that the first plan be published within one year of the Act's coming into operation and that updated plans be published at intervals of no more than five years. It also places duties on the Minister to consult widely with schools, teachers, parents, — let me try — Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, more commonly known as CnaG, and others across the sector. It requires measurable targets and a report to the Assembly on the implementation of each plan within 18 months.

My Department understands that the sector faces a number of well-recognised and long-standing pressures. Irish-medium education has experienced sustained growth in recent years, and that brings with it new demands on staffing, training, leadership, resources and support services. Consultation responses on this private Member's Bill, as well as research from Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, Stranmillis University College, Queen's University Belfast and others, highlights shortages of teachers, classroom assistants and SEN professionals with the requisite level of Irish. Teachers also report considerable additional workload from preparing appropriate resources, translating materials and supporting pupils with differing levels of language exposure. Additionally, school leaders highlight issues with buildings, classroom space and access to specialist support. Those are real challenges across the whole education system, some of which are felt most keenly in Irish-medium education and other sectors. They can affect not only staff but the quality of provision for children and the ability of schools to plan for growth.

Some Sinn Féin Members are keen to attack TransformED, but I think that they understand it, and, in understanding it, they will know that TransformED has recognised the importance of the workforce in the delivery of quality education and for Irish-medium education and our system as a whole. While I recognise the intention behind the Bill, I believe that it is important to note that a substantial programme of work is already in place. The Department has established an Irish-medium strategy steering group and a working group that involves CnaG, the EA, CCEA, CCMS, CSSC, Altram and representatives from Irish-medium schools. Those groups are already in the process of developing the Department's first dedicated Irish-medium education strategy, which will set out actions to address teacher supply, leadership development, SEN provision, early years capacity and the availability of immersion-appropriate resources. That work reflects extensive consultation with the same stakeholders that have been identified in the Bill. It ensures that all voices are heard without introducing statutory rigidity.

Initial teacher education intake numbers for Irish-medium education have been protected, even at times when reductions were required elsewhere. Members have referenced equality. Whenever reductions took place, preferential treatment — inequality, if one could describe it as that — was afforded to the Irish-medium sector. People will say that that was the right thing to do. When reductions were applied to every other sector, that did not apply. There was not equality of cuts to the Irish-medium sector, which was given preferential treatment. People can justify that as being the right thing to do. It is not the case that the Bill addresses inequality or the Irish-medium sector being treated as inferior to other sectors. Members have highlighted that there is already a statutory duty and an enhancement of protection that is not afforded to other sectors. The Bill adds further rights on top of existing rights that do not extend to other sectors.

Through TransformED, a new teacher training bursary scheme is being introduced, with Irish-medium education highlighted as one of the priority areas that is experiencing the most acute shortage. I say to the Sinn Féin Members that that shows that TransformED is delivering for the Irish-medium sector.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: The Education Authority is progressing innovative work on the use of artificial intelligence to reduce teacher workload in Irish-medium education settings and plans to appoint accredited AI leads in every Irish-medium school. The Department of Education continues to work with partners to explore additional pathways for fluent Irish speakers to enter the profession, including for entrants from other jurisdictions and alternative training routes. All of that demonstrates that the issues that are highlighted by the Bill are already being not just actively considered but addressed.

The question for the Assembly today is not whether workforce challenges exist — they clearly do, and I agree — but whether legislation is the most appropriate mechanism to address them. My view, which I have set out previously in correspondence — Mr Sheehan referenced that — is that legislation is not necessary and may, in fact, constrain our ability to respond flexibly to changing circumstances. A statutory requirement to publish a workforce plan within 12 months, followed by fixed five-year cycles, does not reflect the dynamic nature of the sector. Growth patterns vary, recruitment pipelines shift and needs evolve in ways that may require more responsive action than a fixed review period would allow. Furthermore, the Bill creates a planning framework that would require funding for the potential measures that a workforce plan might identify. As the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum acknowledges, additional resources would be required to deliver the administrative duties that would be created by the Bill.

Introducing a statutory duty in one specific education sector may also, rightly, raise questions about parity of treatment for other sectors, which are also facing significant workforce challenges. Introducing statutory-based planning now risks creating a structural imbalance between sectors. It also risks creating unknown and unintended consequences that could have a negative impact on the broader workforce and that within Irish-medium education. I am keen to avoid duplication of effort or diversion of focus. The development of the Irish-medium education strategy already provides the mechanism for targeted, evidence-based planning. It involves all the key partners that the Bill has identified, and it will allow for ongoing review, refinement and collaborative decision-making.

Let me be clear: I share the ambition that Irish-medium education should continue to thrive and that it should do so on a strong and sustainable foundation. Our children deserve high-quality education, access to the right support at the right time and school environments where teachers and staff have the resources and professional development that they need in order to deliver excellent education. The work that is already under way in the Department is aimed squarely at delivering on those ambitions. The TransformED work will make a positive difference across all schools, and the Irish-medium education strategy will mark a significant step forward in strengthening the sector, ensuring stability in teacher supply, improving SEN support, enhancing leadership capacity and addressing the operational pressures that schools have articulated.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the genuine concerns around workforce issues in the Irish-medium sector and in the wider education system. I reaffirm recognition of the Department's statutory duty to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education, and I emphasise that a major strategic programme of work is already under way to address the challenges in the sector. The most effective way forward is to complete and implement the Irish-medium education strategy, which is already designed to provide the coordinated, evidence-based and responsive approach that the sector needs. I look forward to continuing to work closely with Members, with Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, with teachers and with the wider community as we take forward that important agenda.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you.

Members, before I move to my next point, I will add to the welcome expressed by Aisling Reilly to Julie Middleton, our new Member. I had the pleasure of speaking to Julie privately yesterday, and I know that she was welcomed separately from the Chair, but I formally add to that and extend my best wishes.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to be called will be Pat Sheehan to conclude and wind on the motion.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): To date, two evaluations of the Substance Misuse Court have shown positive outcomes. Work is ongoing on its cost-effectiveness, and it is anticipated that the full evaluation will be completed by the end of June 2026. I fully endorse its use and effectiveness.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her answer. As of 2024, of the 276 people who had participated in the court since 2018, 117 have been convicted of a further drug-related offence, which is alarming. Given that almost £3 million has been spent on the programme since 2018, does the Minister have any concerns about its value for money to the taxpayer and, importantly, its effectiveness and efficiency?

Mrs Long: The Substance Misuse Court issue goes much wider than the criminal aspect; it is about trying to tackle the underlying causes and complexities of addiction. It is often challenging to get people to break the cycle of addiction and related offending. The evidence from the evaluations to date shows that the Substance Misuse Court has been of use in getting people to engage with services, but it is well established that the first attempt at breaking people's addiction may not always be the successful one, particularly when it comes to substance misuse. It may take a number of attempts. I would prefer it if that were taken forward proactively by our healthcare system, because that is where the problem fundamentally lies and where the biggest change can be made, rather than waiting for people to find themselves in contact with the criminal justice system before we make such interventions.

Mr Beattie: Minister, I totally agree with everything that you have said. How is the mandatory treatment element of enhanced combination orders (ECOs) working? What evaluation has been done of that?

Mrs Long: Enhanced combination orders and the work in the Substance Misuse Courts are two separate things, but part of the challenge has been that, in order to pilot that work, much of the resource has gone through partners in the community and voluntary sector, as they deliver much of the care and intervention. There will be people referred to the Substance Misuse Court who, after a four-week period, may not be determined to be suitable, so it is only after that period that a defendant will be accepted on to the programme. There has to be a willingness on the part of defendants to engage with the programme substantively. In order for defendants to be accepted, they have to be in a position in their life at which they are able to do that effectively and efficiently.

I am happy to engage with the Member about ECOs. Some of the work that we have been doing is being closely followed by colleagues in Scotland, who recognise that enhanced combination orders offer an alternative to dealing with some of the more complex recidivism in the criminal justice system whilst maintaining high levels of public protection.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Minister elaborate on the Substance Misuse Court referral process and how it works?

Mrs Long: Yes. As I said, set criteria are available for referrals to the Substance Misuse Court, and defendants can be assessed as not being suitable. After a four-week engagement programme, they are assessed to see whether they are in a position to engage effectively with the programme. It is only after that initial screening and assessment period that a defendant will be accepted on to the programme. That individual will be required to attend court and probation, initially weekly, and to engage in drug and alcohol testing and counselling or treatment. That will include undergoing psychological assessment and intervention, if appropriate. Participants can also be removed from the programme for a range of reasons. While there is no straight-line approach to dealing with the issues of substance misuse and addiction, the programme allows people who are in a position to do so to maximise the support that is available to them to desist from their addiction and the offending behaviour that initially brought them before the courts.

Mrs Long: The only challenge facing the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) in relation to recruitment and retention is uncertainty around funding to allow them to recruit in sufficient numbers to respond to the rising prison population. The Prison Service has no difficulty attracting applicants, with 525 individuals recruited into operational roles since June 2021. Their assessment process is robust, and staff are supported through a range of well-being initiatives, both in the workplace and when they are absent for work-related or non-work-related reasons.

Staff retention rates in the Prison Service compare favourably with similar organisations. There has been a significant reduction in the number leaving over the last four years from 103 in 2022 to 60 in 2025. Exit interviews are offered to all staff who leave the Prison Service to help the service to get a better understanding of the reasons for leaving and to address any issues raised that can further improve retention rates.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for her reply. The Minister will be aware that there is a significant issue in the Prison Service with staff on long-term sickness absence and how they were dealt with in the past. Will the Minister update us on how approaches to dealing with long-term sick absences in the Prison Service are being dealt with now? Have we turned a corner on that issue, and are we beginning to treat our staff who are on long-term sickness absence better and with much better treatment?

Mrs Long: Prison staff, as you know, are members of the Civil Service. That being the case, they are dealt with through Civil Service HR mainstream procedures. However, the support offered to them by the Prison Service itself has been enhanced during my term in office. Initiatives have been introduced on peer support; counselling and access to counselling; enhanced access to the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust (PRRT), for example, so that those who are, for any reason, exiting the service or require rehabilitation or occupational therapy are able to access that in a safe and secure way. There have been significant improvements, but it would be wrong to suggest that we are at the end of a process. We need to constantly re-evaluate what we can do to support people who do a job that is hidden from view but is, nevertheless, absolutely critical to ensuring that the public are kept safe and that those who are in our custody are able to access rehabilitation and, hopefully, emerge from prison without further reoffending and without creating further victims in the community.

Ms Ferguson: In relation to recruitment and retention, I would like to mention volunteers, particularly those from the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB). When members of the Committee met with them, the volunteers were running at a very low capacity. At that stage, it was around 50%. Are you aware of that, and will you look at that? There are current members who have done their 13 years of service and now have to leave. They have been told that they cannot, even though it is 15 years elsewhere. Will you also look at that? They are keen to stay on, and they provide an exceptional service.

Mrs Long: The work of the IMB is often overlooked. It is a demanding role and, in terms of the spectrum of volunteering that people can be engaged in, volunteering in the IMB in our prisons is probably one of the most challenging. It has proved hard both to recruit people into that role and to retain people, particularly in the first few years of service. However, we have a recruitment campaign under way to recruit new members. It is a regulated position. Therefore, under Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland (OCPANI) rules, we need to be careful about extending people's terms. In addition, given the challenge and pressure that it places on the individuals who volunteer in that role, it may not always be wise to continually extend those terms beyond the initial regulated periods.

Some extensions were made as a result of lack of interest in new recruiting in the last mandate. However, we have had some more interest this time. I encourage any Member who is aware of people in the community who would be interested in working in that role — one that is there to provide independent oversight and monitoring of what happens in our prisons to give prisoners a voice and to see first-hand what is happening in those facilities — to look at the applications to the IMB and get involved. It is not only a challenging role, it is a rewarding one. The IMB members to whom you have been speaking would certainly reflect on their time spent in the prisons as something that they welcomed very much.

Mr Buckley: Minister, it is deeply regrettable that you say that the only issue pertaining to recruitment and retention in the Prison Service is funding, when there is clearly a culture problem in our prisons. Today's headline in the 'Belfast Telegraph' reads:

Staff say that the prison is descending into chaos. They talk about almost a dozen alarms that were sounded in just one day.

Minister, that is on your watch. Your prison officer staff are living in fear. Inmates are going on the rampage. Will you please tell us this: is there a drug problem in our prisons? Have they turned into drug dens? That headline and those accounts suggest that we have serious problems.

Mrs Long: I am not sure where the Member has been over the past five, six, seven, eight years or, indeed, for much of the rest of his life if he thinks that there is not a problem —

Mr Buckley: In our prisons?

Mrs Long: — with addiction and drugs in prisons.

Mr Buckley: In prisons?

Mrs Long: If he is not —.

Mr Speaker: Please continue.

Mrs Long: Thank you. I stopped because I assumed that the Member was not interested in the answer, given that he was interrupting.

There are issues with drugs in prisons. However, we have introduced, for example, full body scanning to reduce the amount of illicit material being smuggled into the prison. That is helpful, and we have seen a downturn in the amount of drugs, in particular, in prisons. There is still a market in prisons for prescription medication, and we work hard with the Department of Health and the healthcare in prisons teams to address and manage that. That has been reflected in recent reports.

For the Member to stand up and use an appalling incident to try to attack me

— he can wave the paper all he likes, but my understanding is that, in the Chamber, props are not permitted. Maybe some people need props to make their point, but I am happy to make my point.

I listen to our prison officers, and I am regularly in our prisons. Yes, it is a matter of funding, because we now have more prisoners in custody than we have had at any time since the Good Friday Agreement. We have no more accommodation, and that leads to potential crowding on our landings and in our cells, which leads to a more volatile situation. If the Member has a solution to that that does not involve waving around newspaper articles but provides for additional prison officers and additional accommodation, I will be happy to meet him. As with every occasion, he comes to the Chamber with no solutions but simply with his little TikTok planned out in advance.

Mr Dickson: On how the Department looks after our prison officers, what well-being support services are available for prison officers, who, obviously, undertake a challenging and stressful role?

Mrs Long: First, where officers are assaulted, it is standard policy that the Prison Service will support them in taking those responsible to court. It is not literally a " Be in Jail Free" card, in this case, where people can assault whomever they wish in the Prison Service and expect that not to have consequences.

All of our staff can access the wider Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) welfare support services, which offer an independent, confidential service to help staff with work stress and personal work-related issues that may affect their ability to work. Operational and non-operational staff can also avail themselves of a self-referral facility to confidential counselling through Lena by Inspire workplace services, and staff can access online resources in the Inspire support hub, which provides expert information and advice on mental health, lifestyle and well-being. NIPS also has arrangements with the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust for prison officers for counselling and physiotherapy. Between 1 April 2025 and 31 January 2026, 45·7% of operational prison grade staff reported no sickness absence.

It is not an easy job to be a prison officer. In some of our prisons, they deal not only with some of the most dangerous people in society but with some of those with the most complex and challenging needs. They have to manage those people in confined spaces through difficult periods, particularly at the moment, when there are such high numbers of people in custody. We should not underestimate the challenge that that presents to individual prison officers and to the prison system as a whole, and it is our job to secure the resources to recruit more prison officers, as we have done over recent weeks and months, and secure the capital to invest in the prisons estate so that prisons are able to continue to do the good work that they do.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you have said repeatedly that recruitment and retention is contingent on adequate funding. I presume that you have been in conversation with the Finance Minister about your budget. Have you agreed your allocation for the multi-year Budget, and is it sufficient to recruit the requisite number of prison officers over the next three years?

Mrs Long: I have been in contact, but no Executive member has yet been asked to agree their allocation, and it is not adequate to meet the needs of the justice system over the next three years. I have been open about that and put the figures on the record. To take a one-year snapshot, at the end of this year, we would be overspent by about £100 million on the basis of simply doing business as usual, which means only essential business, not the other things that may crop up during the mandate.

Having just reflected on capital, I will say, if I may, that, as things stand, we would not have the opportunity to invest in modular accommodation for our prisons to expand our current capacity, because we would not be able to fund that from our capital budget on the basis of our capital allocation in the draft Budget. We would not have any money beyond what is required for us to meet our contractual obligations.

Mrs Long: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 8 together. I ask you to indulge me with extra time, as it is quite an involved answer.

The Department of Justice is responsible for a number of actions in the cross-departmental strategic framework to end violence against women and girls (EVAWG) delivery plan. Ongoing engagement between my officials and the Executive Office, formally under the auspices of the EVAWG programme board and the domestic and sexual abuse strategic oversight board, helps to provide continued alignment and cohesion to promote a comprehensive, cost-effective and joined-up response. Under the EVAWG delivery plan, my Department is working with the PSNI and the Executive Office to deliver the Power to Change public awareness campaign to tackle the underpinning misogynistic behaviours and attitudes that can fuel sexual offending and gender-based violence. The second phase of the campaign, which will launch in May, aims to address rising online misogyny and harmful gender narratives.

Much of the wider work of my Department is aimed at addressing sexual offending and domestic abuse and at supporting victims in these cases. Whilst not all domestic and sexual abuse victims are women and girls, and not all violence against women and girls happens in domestic relationships, there is a significant overlap. Implementation of the domestic abuse offence, which captures patterns of controlling, coercive and threatening behaviour, as well as associated aggravators, is continuing. A pilot for domestic abuse protection notices and orders is under development. Work has been prioritised to establish revised and improved domestic abuse risk response arrangements. I aim to address a legislative gap by introducing new offences to address the creation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images of adults online, which, again, disproportionately affects women and girls. I recently secured legislative consent to extend several provisions of the UK Government's Crime and Policing Bill to build on sexual offences that were introduced in 2022. Together, those measures contribute to a legal framework that allows the criminal justice system to deal effectively with sexual offending, of which most victims are women and girls.

In the past two financial years, my Department has allocated £1·9 million specifically to ending violence against women and girls. Total spend by my Department and non-departmental public bodies was £0·8 million in the 2024-25 financial year and £1·1 million in 2025-26. We have also committed £8·4 million over a seven-year period, commencing in 2025-26, to ASSIST NI to deliver advocacy services to high-risk and high-impact victims of domestic and sexual abuse. Alongside the Department of Health and the Department for Communities, my Department jointly funds the 24-hour domestic abuse helpline delivered by Nexus NI, which will cost £3·2 million over the next seven years. Similarly, whilst our investment of over £0·5 million on remote evidence centres over the past two years is beneficial to all vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, it has disproportionately benefited women and girls.

Mr Gaston: Can the Minister give an assurance that all the money that her Department spends to address this scourge on society is being spent on biological women, or is some of it being diverted to men who pretend to be women? Does the Minister realise that this is not a culture war issue but rather something that deeply concerns more than 50% of the population in Northern Ireland?

Mrs Long: First, I advise the Member not to speak on behalf of all women on this issue — that is the first thing — so I do not know where his saying "more than 50% of the population" comes from. Secondly, what we are doing here is trying to protect vulnerable women and girls from domestic abuse, but my Department is also trying to protect vulnerable men, vulnerable trans people, vulnerable straight people and vulnerable gay people from domestic and sexual abuse. That is what my Department is here to do. We are here to protect every citizen to the best of our ability, defending them against violence against the person or domestic and sexual abuse.

Ms Egan: Minister, you have delivered a huge amount of change and legislation to tackle violence against women and girls. What more needs to be done to make that change in our society?

Mrs Long: I have introduced a diverse range of measures aimed at addressing sexual offending and coercive control and domestic abuse, and further measures are planned that will, I believe, tackle online and technologically aided abuse.

I recognise, however, that legislation alone will not bring an end to the violence and abuse that exists in our society, and I have said that many times in the Chamber. We need a cultural shift in our community. I am absolutely committed to playing my part in protecting women and girls from harm through the law and in recognising new types of harm and creating new offences. Although it is good that we can do this, it is not good enough to be able to tackle violence and take people through the courts whenever harm has occurred. We have to focus on the prevention of that harm. There is no short-term solution to tackling the complex issues around that. Addressing abusive attitudes requires sustained, cross-departmental approaches with an emphasis on preventative actions. I am committed to and have consistently been working with others to ensure that we, along with other stakeholders, can tackle the drivers of abuse and violence. Part of that is not allowing our concern about violence against women and girls to be weaponised in a way that makes other minority groups in our society more vulnerable to abuse.

This is about tackling a very serious crisis that our society faces. We need to work together as a community and across the community, irrespective of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation or how people identify their gender, to ensure that our women and girls are kept safe and that our young men and boys are educated in a constructive and positive way about what it is to be a good man, because, sadly, whilst women and girls are the focus of the campaign, they are not the problem.

Ms Finnegan: Ending violence against women and girls must be a priority for us all. We must be aware, however, of its impact on families and the need to protect children from further harm. Will the Minister outline whether, to that end, she has done any work to explore introducing here the equivalent of Jade's law, which concerns the suspension of parental responsibility for a parent who kills their partner or ex-partner?

Mrs Long: That has been raised with me and is something that causes many of us concern. In recent months and years, we have seen situations in which one co-parent has taken the life of the other co-parent, leaving their children, in most cases, without a mother. We have seen the distress that is caused to families when that person continues to have parental rights.

Ultimately, the family courts make the determination on that, and, when it comes to the area of parental rights and so on, it is for the Department of Finance to introduce any change to family law. That does not lie in the criminal justice sphere, which is where my responsibilities lie. I have looked into that, however, and, in the engagement that I have had with officials in the Department of Finance, there has been a view that, given that the courts have discretion to grant access to children and are genuinely supposed to put the needs of the child rather than the demands or desires of the parents first, there is sufficient scope for a similar approach to be taken within the courts, without any substantive change to primary legislation. I am happy to continue to engage with the Minister of Finance on that issue, but it is for the Minister of Finance to do the policy development work on that, rather than for my Department.

Mr Durkan: I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls, which needs a whole-government approach and a whole-society approach. Minister, what investment and efforts are being made to rehabilitate perpetrators of domestic abuse in order to prevent or reduce reoffending and reduce the risk primarily to women and girls?

Mrs Long: We do a number of things, such as perpetrator programmes. There are opt-in perpetrator programmes for those who, for example, are on remand in the prison system for domestic abuse-related offences. They have the option of taking such a course and engaging in that process. Once people are there as sentenced prisoners, a needs assessment of their rehabilitation is done. A number of desistance programmes are undertaken in prisons. There is one on healthy, happy relationships. Anger management courses are also available to people, and those are often allied with courses on substance misuse, which can trigger some of those incidents. That is happening in prisons.

In addition, the Probation Board runs a number of courses for people who have been convicted of domestic abuse offences that are about changing attitudes. Much like drug rehabilitation therapy, part of the issue is that, unless a person has a desire to change, and unless there is a willingness on their behalf to engage properly and thoroughly with those programmes, it can be very difficult to change patterns of abuse. Many of those in prison come forward as victims of abuse or were, for example, exposed to extreme violence as children. Therefore, part of what we try to do as we go through those desistance programmes is look at how we deal with the trauma that they often carry forward into their adult life and adult relationships and the patterns of behaviour that they learned from those around them as a child and that have led to their being an abuser. Breaking that cycle is not straightforward, but it is something that we invest in.

Mr Carroll: Minister, given that an independent report found clear evidence of sexism and misogyny in the PSNI and that the report and its findings were accepted by the Chief Constable, how appropriate is it for that organisation to deal with violence against women and girls?

Mrs Long: First, I thank the Chief Constable for asking Rachel Langdale to come in and do the review that she did, because that was welcome oversight. The best disinfectant is sunlight. I therefore believe that the openness and transparency with which the Chief Constable has addressed the issue is important. I have no doubt that both Rachel Langdale's report and, indeed, the work being done by the Office of the Police Ombudsman on abuse of position for sexual purposes will cause people to have second thoughts about reporting domestic and sexual abuse to the police. I want to be certain, just as everyone in the House does, that, when a vulnerable victim or witness approaches the police seeking help, they are not inadvertently engaging with another predator. It is important that we do everything at every stage, through vetting and barring, how we approach the recruitment process and how internal vetting in the PSNI works as people perhaps move towards more contact with vulnerable victims and witnesses, to ensure that any red flags that are raised in the organisation are taken seriously and followed up competently. That is the very least that people should expect.

Having said that, I do not wish to overplay the issue in the context of the PSNI versus other forces around these islands. Very often in hierarchical organisations, which are predominately male in nature, the culture needs to change. It is good that that has been acknowledged by the Chief Constable. That leadership from the top is important. I will support the Policing Board and the Chief Constable in every effort that they make to ensure that this is stamped out and that victims can have full confidence that, when they go to the PSNI, they will be protected and kept safe.

Mrs Long: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to answer questions 4, 10 and 15 together.

It is incredibly disheartening that I am, once again, updating the Chamber on the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) service withdrawal. The ever-decreasing resources at our disposal should not be focused on mitigating avoidable levels of harm, and neither should we be trying, through derogations, to balance the needs of those who have already suffered immeasurable loss and trauma, but, unfortunately, that is the very real outcome of the CBA decision to continue with its withdrawal. The withdrawal continues to unnecessarily harm victims and witnesses and will cause damage to the system, which we do not have the resources to repair. It is also to no end, as it will not change outcomes. Furthermore, I have already repeatedly demonstrated my commitment to resolving what have been ever-changing asks from the CBA.

I demonstrated that commitment again when I commissioned the accelerated review, dedicating yet more of my already depleted resources to it and appointing two independent leads in an effort to address at pace the remaining issues. The review is due to conclude no later than 27 April, and I hope that it will bring that unwarranted action to an end.

In the interim, it is for the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) to determine which cases should proceed while the withdrawal is ongoing. That was a condition of my commencing the review. It is right that those who properly understand the detail and impact of offences and who are directly supporting victims and witnesses assess which cases most need to proceed. That assessment will be based on the individual facts of cases, including the nature of the offence and the level of risk of further offending towards complainants and others. I do not underestimate the challenge that that presents for the PPS, and it should not be in the pernicious position of making those decisions. I therefore call on all Members to press, as I am doing, the CBA to return to full service as a matter of urgency.

Mr Speaker: We have to move on to topical questions.

Mrs Long: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to place on record in the House my absolute abhorrence towards those who forced a person, at the point of a gun, to drive a live device through Lurgan, placing everyone in the community from Kilwilkie to the police station at significant risk. The trauma inflicted on the individual, who was trying to make a living by delivering food and was probably on minimum wage, is unimaginable, as is the trauma inflicted on the officers who were at the station when the car arrived there. I commend those officers for their quick thinking and quick response and for keeping people safe while the issue was dealt with.

As I have already said publicly, there is nothing to suggest that that represents a significant change in the capacity or intent of the organisations involved. It has always been the case that, for as long as a rump of individuals wishes to try to target and attack the PSNI, it will have some capability to do so, albeit that capability may be depleted. We should not be complacent, however. One of the reasons why we see very few such attacks is because of the disruption and suppression undertaken by the PSNI in those communities to ensure that they do not happen. Work is done in those communities to build confidence and trust in the PSNI. I pay tribute to the Minister of Finance, who spoke at length about the good work that the PSNI is doing in Lurgan to reach out to the nationalist and republican communities to work cooperatively with them to ensure that neither they nor the PSNI is put at risk.

The organised crime task force (OCTF) continues to do cross-border work as part of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA). The Minister —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mrs Long: — for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration and I were recently at a conference that dealt with those issues.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for your answer, Minister. I am sure that everyone in the House shares the views that you expressed about that very dangerous act at the police station and the danger that was caused to civilians, not least the driver of the vehicle.

Minister, can you indicate whether there are any additional cross-border initiatives taking place to ensure that organised crime, such as drug trafficking and human exploitation, and paramilitary crime can be tackled?

Mrs Long: Through the organised crime task force, there are regular meetings between officials in the PSNI and an Garda Síochána, and those meetings have been very fruitful. As a matter of routine, there is cooperative working not just in border communities but further afield. That is very helpful, because we recognise that many of the issues to which the Member refers are not limited solely to Northern Ireland or the border counties, as there are elements of organised crime that extend way beyond both jurisdictions and into others. It is therefore important that we have the opportunity to work collaboratively and cooperatively.

There are a number of initiatives taking place. The Member will be aware of the work being done around drugs, which is one of the themes, but, through the IGA, we also look at wider issues, such as human trafficking. I had a conversation with Jim O'Callaghan about that issue.

It is important to recognise that it does not matter to organised criminals whether they traffic people or goods. They treat them all as simply collateral from which to make money. They have no compassion for the people who receive those goods and, if it is drugs, can end up with serious addictions or worse. Nor do they have any compassion for the people whom they traffic for other reasons of exploitation. It is, therefore, important that there is that good, collaborative working relationship.

The recent conference that I attended, which included the like of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and HMRC, is just one example of how law enforcement comes together on a regular basis to look at how we can shut down those organised crime gangs and ensure that the path that enables them to cause mayhem and destruction is frustrated.

Mrs Long: I am in contact with my colleagues in the Prison Service on an almost daily basis. I visit the prisons on a regular basis. I do not feel that it is appropriate to, on every occasion, discuss on the Floor what I discuss in those interactions at an operational level, nor is it necessarily the wish of the individual prison officers who have been subjected to assault to have those issues plastered on the pages of newspapers or raised in the House. Therefore I have to act with sensitivity.

I recognise that every prison officer who gets up in the morning and puts on a uniform, goes to work in the evening as a night custody officer or gets into a van to transport prisoners does so at significant risk. I never underestimate that. I am grateful to them for the work that they do and the initiative that they show. However, the painting of our prisons as inherently dangerous places does not reflect the findings of the Criminal Justice Inspection. We have two of the three best-functioning prisons in the UK. That is a transformation from the time when, under devolution, responsibility for prisons was handed over to this place, and we were dealing with some of the most dangerous prisons in Europe. I hope that the Member will reflect on that fact and on the efforts that prison officers make to maintain order and ensure that incidents such as the one he referred to, are kept to an absolute minimum. I certainly respect the work that they do and the compassion that they show as they do that work.

Mr Buckley: Minister, with respect, you have not answered the question, so I can only conclude that you have not met prison officers and senior prison officials following that attack. That attack took place when, according to the staff amongst whom you say the culture is well, the prison was in chaos and prison officers feared for their safety. You have not addressed that point. Minister, did you meet senior prison officials following that rampage, which has been reported in today's newspaper? Or, do you think that it is fake news?

Mrs Long: First, I answered the question and said that I did not believe that my regular meetings, on an almost daily basis, were a matter for airing in the House due to the sensitivities of the conversations and the potential impact on the individuals involved. Nor can I respond to every piece of news that is going to be put in the newspapers or every report that talks about how prison management or prison officers feel at any point in time. To do so would be unwise. I can only go by what I do on a regular basis, which is attend our prisons, remain open and engage, on an almost daily basis, as I said earlier, with the staff, including individual prison officers. I spoke to the director general of prisons as recently as yesterday, if that gives the Member any comfort. Again, I have to drive this point home: suggesting that our prisons are in chaos is a falsehood. I am not saying that the 'Belfast Telegraph' is engaging in false news and fake news, but I am saying that the Member's portrayal of an incident that took place within the prison as being proof of that prison being in chaos —

Mr Buckley: Those are the prison officers' comments.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Long: — simply does not stack up against the evidence.

Mrs Long: Campaigns on the use of e-scooters and their legality is a matter for the Department for Infrastructure rather than the Department of Justice. I have, of course, during our regular meetings, had conversations with the PSNI about the concerns that have been expressed to me in this House and elsewhere about the proliferation of e-scooters and the risk that they pose to life.

Ultimately, e-scooters are illegal, so, when the police see people using e-scooters on a public thoroughfare, they are at liberty to take action. I suspect that, again, the issue comes down to what resources are available. In some areas where e-scooters have been a systemic problem for some time, the PSNI has done very good work to target groups of young people who are engaged with e-scooters, scrambler bikes and other such vehicles. The PSNI has worked with those young people, not to dissuade them from having an interest in those vehicles but to educate them about their safe use and the dangers of using them on the open road.

Given that that is a particular issue in the Member's constituency, it may be worth contacting the policing and community safety partnership (PCSP) to see if something can be done between the it, the PSNI and, perhaps, even some of the Member's colleagues on the Policing Board, because I know that they, too, have shown an interest in this issue.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for that. Will she commit, in the House, to discuss with the Minister for Infrastructure emulating clause 8 of the Crime and Policing Bill in England and Wales, which looks to strengthen legislation on seizure powers and reduces the amount of time that the police have to hold on to e-scooters before they are able to destroy them?

Mrs Long: Given the late stage of the mandate and the fact that we are now at a point when the introduction of new ideas for legislation is probably beyond the capacity of any Department to take forward in this mandate, it is unlikely that that would come to fruition quickly. There are things that can be done quickly to achieve desistance, and that is why I suggested that the PCSP and Policing Board colleagues may be able to assist. I am happy to continue to engage with the Department for Infrastructure on the basis that that Department is the policy lead and has said that e-scooters are illegal, which means that there is no grey area. The PSNI and my Department have looked at seizure of vehicles, impoundment and so on, but we have mainly been doing so in the context of the costs that the PSNI carries as a result of having to impound vehicles regularly.

Mrs Long: I recognise that the Executive as a whole will not receive sufficient levels of additional funding during the multi-year Budget period, and I am incredibly conscious of the significant pressures that Departments face and the difficult decisions that we will have to take as an Executive. However, it is extremely disappointing that the proposed Budget allocations will leave my Department facing stabilisation pressures of £101 million in 2026-27, £141 million in 2027-28 and £215 million in 2028-29. That is before exceptional pressures for holiday pay, McCloud and legacy are taken into account.

A pressure of £215 million in 2028-29 sounds like a large figure, and it is, but, as an indication, it represents the entire current budgets of the Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science put together. It is fairly clear that that gap cannot be closed by reducing the number of civil servants with a tweak here and a tweak there. That is a significant shortfall in the available budget, and I would go as far as to say that it would be catastrophic for the justice system in Northern Ireland.

Considering the magnitude of the pressures that remain, it is difficult to see how any Department will be able to live within budget, and the limited funding to my Department, which has gone on for a significant period of time, makes that all the more difficult. There are no savings left to be found in Justice. All that we can do is start to cut the services that we provide. Most Members have been saying today that they want more of a good thing: more intervention, more protection and more engagement with communities. It is almost impossible for us to do any of that, even at the current level, with the budget as it is.

We will need to look very carefully as we approach the point at which a decision must be made on that budget.

I am also conscious, and I have raised it here, that we do not have an Executive Budget and we are now almost two weeks into the new financial year. That, in itself, is a worry. If we do not get a Budget, we can allocate only 45% of last year's starting Budget to see us through to July/August, and then only 95% of last year's starting Budget to see us through the rest of the year. That would be even more catastrophic than the draft Budget itself.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Sheehan to make the winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

First of all, I thank everyone who participated in the debate. It was a very well-tempered debate.

Those who opposed the legislation raised two main issues: first, the fact that a strategy is being developed in the Department and, secondly, that there is an equality issue because Irish-medium education would be given a privileged position in our overall education system. Let me just clear up a few issues about equality.

Questions were raised about why Irish-medium education would require different SEN support and whether that implied preferential treatment. It is important, therefore, to state at the outset, and to clarify, that Irish-medium education does not sit within one particular sector. There are Irish-medium schools and units in the maintained sector. There is provision in the controlled sector. Most recently, there is Irish-medium provision in the integrated sector at Scoil na Seolta. While Irish-medium education spans several sectors, it constitutes a distinct education system in the language of instruction. Therefore, from a SEN support perspective, the education system operates, in practice, through two media of instruction: education that is delivered through the medium of English and education that is delivered through the medium of Irish. All controlled, maintained, integrated and special schools that deliver education through English benefit from a fully developed and system-wide SEN infrastructure that is delivered in English. That includes educational psychology, assessment and follow-up and SEN-related training and advice that is provided by the Education Authority (EA). They get support from local impact team intervention and have access to specialist professional support services.

Irish-medium schools, on the other hand, regardless of sectoral designation, deliver education entirely through Irish, which is the language of learning and assessment, not an additional or enrichment subject. Equivalent SEN services do not currently exist in a consistent or systematic way through the medium of Irish, despite Irish-medium pupils having the same statutory entitlements as all other pupils. The issue that is raised by the Bill is therefore not one of sectoral privilege or additional entitlement but one of parity of access. Irish-medium pupils with special educational needs should receive the same assessment, intervention and support as their English-medium peers. For that to be effective, it must be delivered in the language of instruction. The absence of SEN support that is delivered through Irish represents a structural gap in provision, affecting pupils across several sectors, rather than an advantage that is afforded to any one sector. Addressing that gap aligns with inclusive education principles and ensures that pupils are not disadvantaged based on the language through which they are educated.

There was talk about the statutory duty on the Minister:

There were some concerns that there would be some sort of change to or a strengthening of that statutory duty, but that is not the case. The Bill is not trying to change the statutory duty in the 1998 Order to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education. Through the Bill, we are trying to give practical effect to that statutory duty.

When it comes to equality, how has that statutory duty been implemented and carried out by successive Ministers? After 28 years, teachers in Irish-medium education still have to translate materials themselves for children in those schools. There is a deficit of bespoke materials and resources for children who are educated through the medium of Irish. That is after 28 years. If I had had my way, as I said in my opening remarks, I would have introduced a much more expansive and wide-ranging piece of legislation. It would have included a duty on the Minister to ensure parity between children in Irish-medium schools and those in English-medium schools in the provision of resources, particularly by having resources in the language in which the children are educated. The fact that teachers in Irish-medium schools still have to translate materials themselves is a stain on the Department of Education.

Some Irish-medium schools have been in temporary buildings for nearly 40 years. Where was the statutory duty there to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education? Coláiste Feirste, the main Irish-medium post-primary school in the North, had a major development that, I would say, opened 10 years ago for a population of 550 students. There are now more than 1,000 pupils at Coláiste Feirste. It is bursting at the seams. Iontaobhas na Gaelscolaíochta and Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta have been begging the Department for over seven years now to provide a site for a second post-primary school in Belfast, preferably in North Belfast because many of the students who attend Coláiste Feirste come from North Belfast. What has the response been? "No sites are available". Nothing can be provided for children who want to continue their education in Irish after primary school at post-primary schools. The fact that there are so many children in that school, which was designed for 550 pupils, affects the fabric of the school, levels of wear and tear and access to toilets — everything — but there has been no urgency on the part of the Minister or the Department to ensure that a second site is provided for children in post-primary education.

I am not saying that the Department has done nothing — I am not saying that at all — but I am saying that the Irish-medium sector is growing faster than the Department is dealing with the challenges that exist in that sector.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that some of the challenges that he outlined in respect of the Irish-medium sector estate are the same challenges that we see in the SEN sector, in that we need more special schools, and we need more sites? A big part of the problem is that the Department of Education is not resourced to the level that it needs to be in order to provide some of those facilities.

Mr Sheehan: I absolutely agree that there are problems in delivering SEN support in English-medium schools as well. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The Committee has been holding an inquiry for the past number of months, and anybody who sits on the Committee and has listened to the evidence that has been given will be clear that the provision that is there at the minute does not cut the mustard.

One of the reasons comes back to an issue that we discussed yesterday, and we discussed before the Easter break. There is no cooperation at all between the Education Minister and the Health Minister. You know that, David, because you sit on the Committee, and you know that there is no cooperation there at all. It is an issue that requires cooperation and collaboration between the Health Department and the Education Department, and that is not there. We saw, on the issue —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: I will just finish this point. We saw, on the issue of the summer schemes for special schools, that the Education Minister could not even lift the phone to his counterpart in Health. I will give way.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member agree that, from the Committee's perspective, quite often, we have seen a willingness from Education officials to engage? My perception and that of the Committee is that there is more reticence on the Health side. That is not an attack on the Health Minister. That is to say that Health, with its budgetary issues, has a reticence about over committing itself, but I think that the reticence that we have seen in the Committee has largely been from the Health side.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please return to the scope of the Bill. We have strayed somewhat beyond it. If we return to the framework of the Bill now, we can continue.

Mr Sheehan: To finish on the matter of equality, there were some concerns that we were arguing that the Irish-medium sector should be given a privileged position over other sectors. Mr Burrows is fairly new to the place, and he may not be familiar with all the procedures, but part of the process involved writing to the Equality Commission to inform it of what we were doing and of our policy intent. The Equality Commission did not identify any adverse impacts from the Bill. In fact, it highlighted the importance of properly resourced, planned provision, particularly in areas such as SEN, to ensure equality of opportunity for all children, including those in Irish-medium education. Therefore, the issue around a lack of equality for children in English-medium settings because of the proposed legislation is just a nonsense.

Let us move on to the argument that, because the Minister is bringing forward an Irish-medium education strategy, the legislation is superfluous, there is no need for it and that the Minister will deal with all those issues. We have written to the Minister on a few occasions to ask him what will be contained in his strategy, and, to be quite honest, we have not got very satisfactory answers. The answers are always pretty vague. He has told us that something is being considered, but he will not give us the full picture of what will be in it.

There is currently no statutory requirement on the Department to produce a workforce plan for Irish-medium education. That is the gap that the Bill addresses.

A non-statutory strategy, however welcome in principle, offers no guarantees of delivery, no requirement for timelines and no mechanisms for accountability.

We are being asked to place our faith in a strategy that is not due until 2027, after an Assembly election, from a Minister whose track record on the Irish language is shocking. I say that not to score any points; I say it because it is a fact. None of the people in the Irish-medium sector — the parents who send their children to Irish-medium schools; the children who attend Irish-medium schools; the people throughout the North who go to Irish language ranganna

; and the people who do not speak Irish but have a love for it and like to see it being promoted — trust the Minister to deliver a strategy for Irish-medium education. Nobody trusts him. The Minister knows why they do not trust him. They know his history with the Irish language. They know that he was the Minister who cut the Líofa bursaries for young children from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to Gaeltachtaí to learn Irish. It was a miserly sum that he cut, and, to add salt to the wound, he wished everyone a happy Christmas at the end of his email. Against that backdrop, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether a future strategy will even be delivered.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: I will give way in a second. I do not want to make it entirely personal about the Minister. His party is notorious for its hostility to the language, and that is something that I do not understand. How can you hate a language? How can you think that a language is offensive? What is offensive about a dual language sign in a public building in 2026? What was so offensive that the DUP thought it a good idea that its Minister should join a judicial review?

I will give way to the Minister.

Mr Givan: Apart from comments being completely outwith the principles of the Bill, Sinn Féin has, up until this point, done well to resist the temptation to go down the route that Mr Sheehan has now taken with his commentary. I did not go into the history of the Irish language and the way in which Sinn Féin has used and abused it. Mr Sheehan, when I visit schools, I am told that the language needs to be protected from Sinn Féin's politicisation of it.

It does a disservice to the issues that you raise in the Bill that you have decided to go down the route that you have taken at the very end of Second Stage. You know that you have the numbers to vote the Bill through, but you could not resist the temptation to take the approach that you have taken. The Irish language deserves to be protected from the kind of approach that you have just taken at the latter point of today's process.

For the record, I never sent any email. I never said what the Member just said about wishing anyone a happy Christmas. To correct the record on that issue, it was from an official in the Department; it was not a ministerial letter.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we proceed, I remind Members to stick to the scope of the Bill.

Mr Sheehan: It is never a good sign when a Minister tosses an official under the bus. His name was at the bottom of that email, so it came from him.

The argument that the Bill is premature ignores the reality that the workforce issues have existed for years and years. The DUP has held the Department of Education portfolio for over a decade, and, during that time, we have not seen the structured, long-term workforce planning required to address shortages in teacher numbers, SEN provision and support staff. The idea that action should now be delayed further in anticipation of a future strategy is not credible. The Irish-medium sector cannot wait.

Fourthly, far from duplicating or constraining departmental work, the Bill strengthens it. It provides a statutory framework within which any strategy must operate. It ensures that planning is not ad hoc, not dependent on individual Ministers and not allowed to drift.

Finally, on cost, the figures show that the Bill's administrative requirements are modest. The real question is the cost of continuing to do nothing. Workforce planning is not a burden; it is a basic necessity. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Second Stage of the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Education.

Members, please take your ease.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, the next item of business is a motion on conducting a cost-benefit analysis of net zero policies. You will be aware of the long-standing interest in the Assembly in the A5 western transport corridor scheme, including the debates that we had in the Chamber last year. Members will be aware of recent judgements of the High Court on the A5 scheme and the implications of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Those judgements, with a focus on departmental decision-making, are now subject to appeal. I do not wish to curtail debate on what is obviously a matter of considerable public interest, and there is much in the motion that can be discussed without straying into the matters before the Court of Appeal. However, I remind Members to respect the distinct roles of the courts and the Assembly when making their contributions.

Members may see me pause while I check with the Clerks on either side of me as we go through this. That is to make sure that we are kept correct: I am sure that you will indulge me as I do that.

Miss McIlveen: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Michelle, please open the debate on the motion.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to propose the motion, which speaks directly to the everyday concerns of constituents across Northern Ireland. It is about why a number of parties in the Chamber took the decision to hamstring functionality in the race to virtue-signal and still seem determined to limp on instead of addressing the problem.

The DUP supports environmentally responsible policies and recognises the UK's long-term ambition to reduce emissions. We believe in a fair — not a fast — path to net zero. Fairness means ensuring that climate ambition does not come at the expense of working families, rural communities or the infrastructure that underpins our economy. It is abundantly clear that the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 has created precisely that imbalance. The legislation was a political compromise in response to an even more extreme proposal, and, while amendments secured by the DUP helped to protect agriculture and taxpayers, it ultimately embedded a net zero by 2050 target that we had consistently opposed. We did so not out of ideology but because independent scientific advice indicated that such a target for Northern Ireland was neither necessary nor deliverable. I very much welcome the UUP's recent Damascene conversion in recognising the folly of the net zero by 2050 target, but I note that it co-sponsored a Member's Bill that was intended to mandate a net zero by 2045 target.

The consequences of the legislation have become painfully clear. The recent court ruling on the A5 western transport corridor laid bare the stark reality. Mr Justice McAlinden warned that, if the road is to be built while emissions targets are being met:

We should take a moment to think about that: a road designed to save lives and support economic growth is being jeopardised by targets that largely exist on paper. When climate policy begins to block life-saving infrastructure, it is time to ask whether we have lost sight of common sense.

The implications do not end with the A5. The A4 Enniskillen bypass and other vital projects now hang in the balance. Communities in the west should not be told that their safety and prosperity are negotiable because of unworkable emissions targets. Climate ambition should not come at the cost of connectivity and safety.

The motion highlights the statutory requirement to allocate a minimum of 10% of transport budgets to active travel. Investment in walking and cycling should be made where it is appropriate and beneficial, but imposing a rigid spending quota regardless of local need is simply poor governance.

Across Northern Ireland, our roads are deteriorating. Potholes are no longer an inconvenience but a hazard, and motorists are left to foot the bill for vehicle damage. When families are dodging potholes on their way to work, it is hard to justify the ring-fencing of funding for projects that do not address the most urgent needs. Flexibility, not inflexibility, should guide our investment decisions.

Central to the motion is the call for the withdrawal of the draft climate action plan 2023-27. The DUP engaged constructively with the consultation process, and our conclusion is clear: the draft plan is built on shaky foundations. It is estimated that it will cost over £1 billion between now and 2027, yet a significant number of the policies to reduce emissions across nine sectors are not quantified at all. Assessments of the likely impact on emissions of measures such as the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP), the shift policy for reducing vehicle emissions and changes to building regulations are lacking. In any other area of government, proposing billion-pound spending without clear evidence would be considered unacceptable. Why should climate policy be any different? Furthermore, the quantification report acknowledges that Departments use varying methodologies to estimate emissions reductions, with some relying on external scientific expertise and others conducting in-house analysis. That inconsistency raises serious questions about the reliability of the data underpinning the plan. If the numbers cannot be compared, how can they be trusted?

There is a glaring absence of a level playing field. We have noted that to be the case, time and again, with policies coming from and approaches taken by the Department. While the agriculture sector faces extensive obligations, Northern Ireland Water, which is one of the region's largest landowners, is not associated with any specific policies or proposals. Farmers are being asked to shoulder the burden while other major sectors appear to escape scrutiny. That is neither fair nor sustainable. Agriculture is not just an economic sector but a way of life. It is vital to the nation's food security. The draft plan estimates that there will be a £70 million capital cost for measures affecting the sector, but it provides little clarity on who will bear the costs. Even more concerning are the assumptions that the proposals could lead to a reduction of 81,000 beef cattle and 25,000 dairy cattle by 2027. For many farming families, those are not abstract figures but representative of their livelihoods and the future of rural communities. Proposals such as methane-suppressing feed additives, alternative fertilisers and changes to livestock management may have merit, but they must be economically viable and evidence-based. A sustainable future for Northern Ireland cannot be built by making family farms unsustainable.

Of the estimated £718 million of capital expenditure that underpins the draft climate action plan, almost 47% is allocated to transport. That is largely predicated on the rapid phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles. A transition to cleaner transport is desirable, but it must be realistic. In other jurisdictions, it has been accepted that such a timescale is not realistic. In addition, electric vehicle infrastructure remains inadequate, particularly in rural areas. Encouraging a modal shift to public transport is the right thing to do, but measures associated with achieving that are largely unquantified. Setting overly ambitious targets without having the infrastructure to support them is not leadership but wishful thinking. The DUP believes that it was premature to advance the draft plan without first establishing the just transition commission and the just transition fund for agriculture, both of which are legislative commitments. A just transition cannot be an afterthought. Rather, it must be the foundation on which climate policy is built. We cannot ask people to make sacrifices without first providing them with the support to help them adapt.

In the overarching financial, social and economic impact assessment, it is claimed that the draft plan will be financially neutral, but it is also acknowledged in that assessment that implementing the plan will require trade-offs that will potentially crowd out investments in other priorities. The A5 legal judgement provides a clear illustration of that risk. If left unamended, the Climate Change Act could require Departments to divert funding away from front-line services such as roads, schools and hospitals in order to meet emissions targets. When climate policy begins to compete with patient care or classroom provision, we should pause and reassess our approach. The current net zero target is unworkable for Northern Ireland. There needs to be transparent and evidence-based policymaking, and when I say "transparent", I also mean honest.

By tasking:

we can ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence and deliver genuine value for money. Good intentions alone do not make good policy; evidence and accountability do. The question for Members is straightforward: are they prepared to support transparency, or are they content to proceed on the basis of unquantified assumptions? Supporting the motion is not about abandoning environmental responsibility; it is about ensuring that climate action is fair, realistic and deliverable. The debate is not about choosing between the environment and the economy; it is about ensuring that we strike the right balance between environmental ambition and the practical needs of our people.

The motion calls for a recognition that aspirational climate targets are impeding the delivery of essential infrastructure and public services, the withdrawal of the current draft climate action plan 2023-27 until its proposals are fully quantified and properly assessed and a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of all net zero-related climate policies across every Department and arm's-length body. It is a sensible, transparent and, importantly, honest approach to the issue. There needs to be demonstrable commitment to responsible governance, fiscal prudence and a truly fair transition that protects households, businesses and the agri-food sector while still enabling progress towards environmental sustainability.

This is not a sixth-form debating club where our decisions do not mean anything; what we decide impacts on every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland. We need to restore common sense to government. Climate ambition should not come at the expense of economic stability, public safety and the well-being of the people whom we are elected to serve.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Michelle. I call Declan Kearney. Declan, you have up to five minutes.

Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

this process —

So said the former leader of the DUP and then DUP Environment Minister, Edwin Poots, when he welcomed the 2022 Climate Change Bill. Indeed, he went on to laud the passing of the Bill as "an historic moment".

The advice from the experts and the extensive scientific evidence on climate change are at least the same in 2026 as they were in 2022. We must meet net zero targets, protect our environment and proactively tackle the climate change challenges that we face. Is it the case that, with this motion, the DUP has done a U-turn and is now announcing its return to archaic climate change denial? Denial and inaction are not an option.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he acknowledge that the then Minister, Edwin Poots, went on to say:

I know that Mr Kearney is giving his own version of history, but perhaps he could be accurate and say that it is his party's commitment to climate change targets that is essentially driving industry to a halt in Northern Ireland.

Mr Kearney: There is no better man to revise history than you, Jonathan. [Interruption.]

Mr Kearney: The reality is that —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Oi, oi, oi. Excuse me, gentlemen. Sorry. Give me a second to at least give Declan an extra minute before you two get stuck in again. Right. Over to you. Declan, you have an extra minute.

Mr Kearney: Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle

.

There is no better man to revise history than you, Jonathan. The point is that we need to move forward on the basis of the just transition principles. That is the ground that the DUP needs to get on to.

Months out before this summer, we are already facing another stark reminder of the catastrophic threat to the biodiversity and ecological well-being of Lough Neagh. The livelihoods of brown eel fishermen, the commercial fishing industry and all forms of economic activity along the lough shore are being devastated. With regard Lough Neagh, let me say this: worse is still to come.

The current geopolitical and economic crisis caused by the US attacks on Iran have now brought into sharp focus the unsustainability of our dependence on fossil fuels. The need for investment in sustainable green energy strategies, including green skills, and all-island renewable projects, including offshore wind, has rarely, if ever, been more urgent. The DUP chooses to pay lip service to the deepening cost-of-living crisis while, at the same time, it stands on the sidelines, warmongering about what is happening in the Middle East. The global instability caused by this latest war is exacerbating the cost-of-living pressures, and it is adding to the distress of those who are already struggling with the inability to pay for their heating and to fuel their vehicles.

This is a bizarre motion from the DUP. It is, at best, defeatist and lacks ambition, if it is not outrightly cynical. Notwithstanding the comments of the Member who spoke earlier, it juxtaposes one part of our regional economy against another, when both are absolutely essential. The climate action that the DUP has already agreed to and infrastructure development are both possible. Working families need clean air and waterways, and we must also have roads and rail, and the future growth of our regional economy and the environmental demands mean that we must make progress in both areas.

Mr Blair: I speak on behalf of the Alliance Party to oppose the motion. Let us be honest about what the motion really is. It is not about better evidence, better value for money or better public services; it is about rolling back the climate commitments that the Assembly has already made in law and casting doubt, yet again, on the reality and urgency of the climate crisis. What we have here is Trumpian denial in one of its forms from the usual source.

As I have stressed in the Chamber on numerous occasions —

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: No. Not so early, and probably not given the time limits.

Climate change is not theoretical for the people of Northern Ireland. We already face more frequent and intense flooding, which causes damage to homes, farms and businesses. Our rivers and loughs are under pressure from rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns and ecological stress. There are heavier downpours that overwhelm the drainage and sewerage systems. Just last week, we had reports of blue-green algal blooms appearing again in Lough Neagh. Those are not abstract concerns that we can brush under the carpet; they threaten public health, food security, tourism and our quality of life. Put simply: every delay to serious climate action means greater damage and higher future costs.

The motion implies that the Climate Change Act is an obstacle to vital infrastructure such as the A5 and A4, yet the recent court judgement was clear that the problem was not the climate legislation but failures in planning and coordination across Departments. Climate law does not stop infrastructure; it demands better infrastructure that is properly assessed, consistent with emissions targets and aligned with a credible pathway to net zero. Furthermore, the motion attacks the draft climate action plan and implies that DAERA's work is an unjustifiable burden on farmers and households. In reality, the Minister has acted quickly to begin meeting our legal obligations and to place Northern Ireland on a more sustainable footing. From the green growth strategy to the environmental improvement plan, the Minister has shown how climate, biodiversity and green jobs can be integrated, rather than treated as competing priorities. The DUP motion goes further by criticising the legal requirement for a minimum spend on active travel and wrongly presents it as a barrier to road maintenance.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: Yes.

Mr Donnelly: Does the Member agree that higher spending on active travel benefits all our communities?

Mr Blair: Absolutely. I thank the Member for the intervention.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Blair: Thank you. I am sure that the Member, like me, has ample evidence in his constituency inbox that shows the demand for high-quality active travel. However, the way in which active travel has been put in the motion misunderstands a modern, efficient transport system that reduces congestion, cuts emissions, improves air quality and relieves pressure on the health service by helping to tackle obesity, heart disease and poor mental health. Alliance is proud to defend investment in active travel and to stand alongside groups, such as the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, that know that increased active travel options benefit everyone.

I turn to the motion's claim about the alleged burden of net zero on ratepayers, householders and farmers.

That is a gross evasion of the facts. The Climate Change Committee reports that each pound invested in net zero generates between £2 and £4 in benefits, including decreased fuel imports, reduced energy costs and the prevention of climate damage. Additionally, the Economy Department has indicated that research shows that there are currently over 100,000 jobs in Northern Ireland's green sector, with a potential to grow another 58,000 by 2035.

Across the EU and beyond, Governments are investing in clean technologies, renewable energy, green skills and nature restoration because they see clear evidence that those investments create resilient jobs, attract investment and future-proof their economies. If we row back now, Northern Ireland will not save money. We will simply fall further behind. Businesses, including farms, are already innovating by using precision agriculture, restoring peatlands, investing in renewables and cutting waste and emissions. Our job is to support and accelerate that innovation, not undermine it with mixed messages from the Assembly.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: I cannot, at this point; I really am going to run out of time.

A net zero Northern Ireland is a vision for a better, healthier, more prosperous Northern Ireland. The transition will be challenging. It will require upfront investment, new skills, better planning and support for those most exposed to change, but the status quo is not an option. The cost of inaction will dwarf the cost of acting now.

Of course, reaching net zero is not the responsibility of the AERA Minister alone; it requires commitment from every Department and, crucially, political will from the Assembly. That means putting a firm stop to the stop-start government that has led to wider delays in climate policy coming forward. While we debate, people outside the Chamber are getting on with it. Businesses are cutting emissions; farmers are adopting more nature-friendly practices; and community groups and young people are campaigning for cleaner air, active travel and restored habitats. The public want greener options and innovative solutions. We must listen to them and act accordingly. Recent research carried out by the RSPB in February clearly indicates public opinion. Some 86% of respondents believe that the Executive should do more, not less, to restore nature and fight climate change. That 86% figure directly contradicts the stance expressed by the DUP in the motion. Therefore it will not surprise the House to hear that we will vote against the motion.

Mr Butler: There is no doubt that the motion contains elements that are worthy of discussion. It raises legitimate concerns about infrastructure delivery, particularly the A5; pressures on ratepayers; and the real frustration that communities feel when long-promised projects are delayed. It also, entirely reasonably, asks that policies be properly costed and poses a question about where their impacts are understood and whether Departments are working efficiently. Those points in the motion deserve proper debate in the Chamber, but, unfortunately, due to the nature of the motion, each of us has only a few minutes in which to speak. However, the motion falls fundamentally short in its framing, unfortunately. At its core, it presents a false choice. It suggests that we must choose between environmental ambition and economic progress and between climate responsibility and delivering for our citizens. That is not only misleading but counterproductive

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Not at this point.

The reality is this: our environment and our economy are not in competition. They are inextricably linked. The agri-food sector — one of the cornerstones of our economy — depends entirely on a stable climate, healthy soils and sustainable water systems. Our ability to attract investment depends increasingly on credibility in the transition to net zero. Our energy security, food security and long-term prosperity hinge on getting the right balance.

The Ulster Unionist Party is clear that we do not accept that it is a binary choice. We say that we must do both and must do better, but we have to be honest about where the failures lie. If we miss the targets by 2027 — I suggest that we will — it will not be because of our farmers, builders or businesses; it will be because we were not here. It will be because of the failure of leadership and coordination at the heart of government and, particularly, because of the lack of interdepartmental working. We have had five years out of the past 10 years without ministerial leadership; five years without strategic direction; and five years without setting a clear and collective ambition for Northern Ireland, its environment and its economy.

That vacuum has consequences. We see it in the lack of preparedness in Departments. We see it in the failure to support renewable energy, whether it is onshore or offshore, and, in particular, in anaerobic digestion. My party will propose a motion to the House next week on that subject, and I hope that Members will get behind it, because it tackles the problems that we face: food security, energy security and our environmental credentials in this country. That is being solution-focused. We see it in the absence of meaningful progress on afforestation — we will miss that target — in the stagnation of waste management reform and in the slow pace of change in transport, especially when it comes to electric vehicles and active travel.

I will let the Member come in.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. I will assess that motion when it comes, and, if I feel that it is in the best interests of the Northern Ireland public, I will certainly support it. In that vein, the Member has outlined many aspects of today's motion that he agrees with and some that he does not: will the Ulster Unionists support today's motion?

Mr Butler: We need to be clear about this.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Butler: Thank you very much.

Had the motion said, "We will revise the targets", which is the party position of the Ulster Unionists, because the targets need to be revised, we would. However, withdrawal of the ambition means that we will fail to hit the mark at all. There is nothing wrong with having ambition, but we need to be absolutely honest in the Chamber: we will probably miss the targets. We have to be honest with the public. However, if we remove the ambition completely, we will miss the targets by a country mile. We need to stop blaming Joe Public, the farmer and the agrisector, and we need to work collectively in our Departments to ensure that we are facing in the same direction.

Let us scrutinise climate policy. I can assure you that, if any of us are here in 2027 — if we are lucky enough to be elected — we will ensure that the scrutiny that is applied to the next draft climate plan will result in a different figure from what the last one got. However, let us ensure that it is proportionate and deliverable. Let us not pretend that the problem is the ambition itself. The problem is the absence of a coherent plan that works between Departments to actually deliver.

The motion rightly identifies some of the symptoms, but it misdiagnoses the cause and, in doing so, makes it impossible for us to support it. A simple change to the wording would have made it credible and deliverable.

Does the Member want to come in?

Mr Buckley: I will.

Mr Butler: No, you have already come in.

Does the Member want to make an intervention?

Miss McIlveen: Yes, absolutely, because the Member is dancing on the head of a pin. His party certainly did not table an amendment.

Mr Butler: I remind the Member that the climate Act was brought forward by Edwin Poots. You and I were here, and we all voted for it. We may have a difference of opinion when it comes to our ambition and where we see the climate in respect of the economy and the environment, but, for us, it is about balance. Both things are achievable, and prosperity in that regard is absolutely achievable. I hope that the DUP will join us in that vein and see the linkage between the two. We need to move forward with ambition, realism and leadership, and that means rejecting the false choice at the heart of the motion. We should instead commit to an approach that delivers for both the environment and the economy.

Ms McLaughlin: It is important that we step back from the framing of the motion and look at the reality of where Northern Ireland is. The argument being made is that climate targets are the barrier and are holding back infrastructure and delivery and placing pressures on public services. However, when you look at the evidence, you see that that is not where the problem is.

When the Assembly passed the Climate Change Act, it did so because Northern Ireland was already falling behind. We were behind on emissions reduction, renewable energy and the infrastructure needed to support both. The Act was intended to provide clear direction and a level of certainty that had been missing for far too long. That need for direction has not gone away; if anything, it has become even more pressing. We need to remember that the target of 80% renewable electricity by 2030 was supported by industry at the time. It also had the support of the parties in the Assembly. At the time, the target was not seen as unrealistic; it was seen as achievable, provided that government did what it was required to do to support that delivery. That is where the difficulty has emerged.

As I know from my role on the Economy Committee, it is clear that progress on the fundamentals has been far too slow. Legislation that should underpin the transition has not been brought forward at the pace at which it was needed. Decisions that would give clarity to the sector have taken far too long. Key infrastructure has not progressed in line with what was envisaged. Those are the issues that are holding us back. Changing or weakening the targets will not address any of that. It will not speed up —.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: Certainly, go ahead.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I think that she still sits on the Executive Office Committee. Is she also concerned that the deputy First Minister is blocking progress on a Climate Commissioner in the Executive?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Ms McLaughlin: That is certainly a concern. We have not done what we said that we would do in order to achieve the targets. The barriers are not the targets but those who are in government and are not delivering the key infrastructure needed to carry the targets forward.

The motion will not speed up legislation, unblock projects or provide confidence to investors. If anything, it risks adding to the uncertainty. That matters because the direction of travel elsewhere is very clear. Across these islands and beyond, Governments continue to move towards net zero, and investment is following in that direction.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: I really do not have any time. I will come back to you if I have time.

There is a real risk that, if Northern Ireland begins to step back from the commitments, which were only recently agreed, we are sending a really bad signal that we are not serious about any form of just green transition. Recently, I met energy stakeholders. What was striking was how far their conversations had already moved on. Their focus is not on whether targets should be revisited but on how they will deliver net zero by 2050. They are planning ahead. They are ready to invest. However, they need certainty. They need to know that the policy framework here will be stable and that decisions will be taken in a timely way. At the moment, that confidence is not where it needs to be.

It is also important to place the debate in the wider context of what people are experiencing. Obviously, energy costs have risen sharply following the latest developments in the Middle East. Households and businesses are feeling that pressure in a very real way, yet the response from the Executive has not matched the urgency of the situation. Too often, we have seen the focus on shifting responsibility elsewhere rather than on using the levers that we have here in order to make lives better for our people and communities. The Executive are not powerless in that. There are steps that could and should be taken to provide support to give some relief to people who are struggling.

Even in that context, the lesson is not that we should slow down the transition but that we should quicken the pace of it. The current system leaves us more exposed than we ever were. Dependence on fossil fuels means exposure to global shocks that really hurt us very much at the heart of where our energy supplies are. If we want greater stability and more secure and affordable energy in the long term, that will come from building a different system. That is what the Climate Change Act was intended to support.

Alongside that, we already see the impact of climate change closer to home in increased flooding, as others have said, more severe storms and growing pressure on infrastructure and public services. Each of those events carries a cost. Those costs will only increase if action is delayed.

Therefore, my party will not support the motion. In fact, I would say this: let us speed up and move to a green, fair and just transition as soon as possible —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Sinéad.

Ms McLaughlin: — and get on with the job that we were sent here to do.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Time is up.

Ms Finnegan: Let us be absolutely clear from the outset: the motion is not about solutions or genuinely addressing the pressures that face families, farmers and communities. It is about deflection and shifting blame. What we are hearing from the DUP is nothing short of political gaslighting. This is the party that brought forward the climate legislation. It is the party whose —.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Ms Finnegan: Not at this early stage. That same party's Minister introduced the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. It hailed it as groundbreaking legislation and voted for it, but now, suddenly, we are told that climate targets are the problem. Which is it? Were the targets right then, or are they right now? The DUP cannot have it both ways. It cannot introduce and vote for legislation and then come into the Chamber and pretend that that legislation is the root cause of every challenge that we face.

Let us talk about the so-called concern for farmers. Just a few weeks ago, the DUP opposed a Sinn Féin Bill to deliver payments to the most disadvantaged farmers in areas of natural constraint.

Mr McAleer: Will the Member give way?

Ms Finnegan: I will, yes.

Mr McAleer: I am glad that the Member mentioned that. I was going to ask for an intervention during Robbie's contribution, but he was very kind to those on the DUP Benches, so I did not ask him for one. I was going to make this point about farmers. Does the Member agree that it is a fact that the largest dairy companies here, which are partnered with very large dairy companies across the water in Britain and across Europe, have very firm targets to reach net zero by 2050? Those targets are driven by consumer demand, so if we were to start to play around with our targets here, we would seriously damage the dairy industry here.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Member for his intervention; I could not agree more. Today, what we are hearing is faux concern. Again, I ask the DUP this: which is it? I ask that because the motion smacks of the usual U-turns, gaslighting and total hypocrisy from a party that sheds its skin to suit the narrative of the day. That is not leadership. Rather, it is a U-turn, plain and simple. The public deserve better and deserve to be shown a bit of respect.

Let us deal with what the motion is trying to do. It is trying to create the impression that climate action is somehow at odds with supporting people and that it is a burden rather than a benefit, but that simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Climate action, when done properly, is about making homes warmer, reducing energy bills and protecting communities from the very real impacts of climate change. It is not an abstract issue, as people's lives are already being affected.

We have also heard the concern about the cost of living. Again, let us be honest with people: energy price rises were not because of climate action but because of global instability and war. Prices rose as a direct result of international invasions that were orchestrated by the US and Israel. Let us not forget that, a few weeks ago, Members opposite could not wait to jump into a selfie with Trump, yet today, they bring to the House a motion —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member resume her seat a second?

Ms Finnegan: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. The debate is about the climate emergency. We have ample opportunity to discuss events in the Middle East and everywhere else in here. Can Members keep their remarks to the motion, please? Thank you.

Ms Finnegan: Today, the DUP brings to the House a motion that has the audacity to blame fuel costs on climate legislation. To repeat what my colleague said yesterday, you must think that people are stupid. I assure you that they are not. They see beyond the U-turns, the gaslighting and the inconsistencies.

We need to cut through the narrative that is being pushed here today about farmers. Farmers are not the problem or the barrier to progress. They are central to the solution. They manage our land, produce our food, sustain rural communities and are the backbone of everyday life. What they need is support, investment and clarity about the future. What they do not need is to be used as a political shield in an argument that offers them no real answers.

The motion talks about "conducting a cost-benefit analysis", but it looks at only one side of the equation. What about the cost of doing nothing? What about the cost of flooding, of extreme weather and of damage to homes, land and infrastructure? What about the cost of continued energy insecurity? Those are real costs, and people are already paying for them.

We then have the call in the motion:

What exactly would that achieve? Would doing that lower bills, provide certainty or support workers and farmers? No. All that it would do is create uncertainty and delay progress. It would send a message that we are stepping back instead of stepping up.

Finally, on the A5, let us be clear: the delay is not just as a result of a current judicial review; it is because of a long-running crusade of objections. My party colleague Minister Liz Kimmins is focused on winning the appeal and moving forward positively. The reality is this: we do not have to choose between supporting people today and protecting our future. We do not have to choose between economic progress and climate responsibility. We can, and we must, do both.

The motion offers no real answers. It shifts the blame, and it avoids responsibility. Let us be honest: it is not serious politics; it is blame shifting —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please?

Ms Finnegan: — from a party that does not want to own the consequences of its decisions.

Mr T Buchanan: There is nothing in the motion that should not command the support of all around the Chamber, yet all I have heard from the other Benches is hot air, pardon the pun, and an unwillingness to face up to reality.

The motion speaks to a fundamental responsibility that we all share, and that is to ensure that the policies that we pass in the Chamber deliver real, tangible benefits for the people whom we represent, not policies that are unbalanced, that cripple industry and that destroy our agricultural community.

No one in the Chamber will dispute the importance of environmental responsibility, but when climate change targets become detached from economic reality, from engineering feasibility and from the lived experience of households and our farming community, surely it is the duty of the Assembly to pause, scrutinise and change our course of action.

While other parties pursued the net zero by 2050 policy and other unrealistic targets, resulting in the estimated cost of DAERA's draft climate action plan exceeding £1 billion between now and 2027, we continually opposed them and warned of the consequences. Minister, having ambitious targets without proper analysis is not leadership. It poses a risk, and we are now reaping the consequences of that.

We are all well aware of the situation around the A5 road upgrade. It is a project that has been in the mix for more than a decade at a cost of millions of pounds, yet it is still sitting in limbo due to unrealistic climate change targets that simply cannot be met. The implications extend much further than that because the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass and other major infrastructure schemes now face similar uncertainties. When legal obligations designed for one purpose end up blocking essential public works, something is wrong.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr T Buchanan: I will give way to Mrs Erskine.

Mrs Erskine: I get preferential treatment. [Laughter.]

I thank the Member for giving way. There is an irony about the Enniskillen southern bypass. Enniskillen is in my constituency, and if you go there on any given day, you will see that the traffic chaos is crazy. On Friday evenings, it is completely blocked up. That contributes to the amount of carbon in our atmosphere. Therefore, it is important that the targets are looked at so that we can deliver infrastructure projects. Does the Member agree?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr T Buchanan: Yes, I agree fully. We need to look at the facts and the reality rather than burying our heads in the sand and pursuing targets that are not feasible.

We also face the perverse situation where a statutory minimum spend on active travel, no matter how well intentioned, is actively preventing investment in basic road maintenance. Our ratepayers expect potholes to be repaired, safe roads to travel on and an infrastructure that delivers, yet DFI is prioritising spending to satisfy a legal formula, rather than a public need.

The draft climate action plan compounds those issues, containing proposals that are uncosted, unquantified and unclear in their impact. Farmers already under pressure from volatile markets and rising input costs are being asked to absorb additional regulatory burdens without any transparent assessment of the economic consequences. Householders, who are facing a cost-of-living crisis, are being asked to shoulder higher bills without any clear evidence that those measures deliver value for money.

The motion neither denies climate change nor rejects environmental action, but it requests competence and evidence-based analysis and that every Department and arm's-length body conducts a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of all net zero-related policies and funding streams. That is not radical; rather, it represents responsible government and leadership from the Minister who is bringing forward those policies.

If a policy delivers environmental benefit at a reasonable cost, it will stand up to scrutiny, but when a policy imposes disproportionate burdens on rural communities, working families or essential infrastructure, the House has a duty and responsibility to acknowledge that and to act accordingly. We cannot continue with a situation where climate policies are developed in isolation from economic reality, have unrealistic targets and are aspirational on paper but obstructive in practice at huge cost to the public purse, with little evidence of benefits flowing from them. Such policies are causing devastation to our industries, our agricultural communities and other sectors across Northern Ireland.

I urge the Minister to consider the road that we are on, to change course and to deliver climate change policy that can be worked on and delivered, rather than something that cannot be delivered at all.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Time is up. Tom.

Mr Honeyford: I want to talk about the cost-of-living crisis that the motion refers to, and I want to talk about the evidence and the facts that have been spoken about and that we long to hear. People outside the Building are feeling its effects every day when they are heating their home, putting fuel in their car or filling up their supermarket trolley. That is all being driven by one thing: our dependence on fossil fuels — oil and gas — yet the DUP wants to distract.

Yes, I want to be honest today and have a conversation about what is actually driving those costs and those spikes. Stop gaslighting people with DUP distraction. It is not climate policy that is costing people; it is a war. It is the DUP's delusional friend Trump. The war in Iran has caused the spike in prices. Everybody outside the Building knows why prices —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Take your seat, Mr Honeyford, please. I have already spoken to a Member about this. Please keep your points to the motion and what we are talking about. As I have said time and again, the Assembly has ample opportunity to discuss what is going on in the Middle East, but please stay closely focused on the motion. We are running tight on time, ladies and gentlemen, so please do not take any interventions, so that we can hear from the rest of the Members on the list to speak. Thank you.

Mr Honeyford: Mr Deputy Speaker, this is directly relevant to the cost-of-living crisis. I am speaking to the motion, which mentions the cost of living, so I am sorry; you will not stop me talking about the reasons why —

— I will not, OK?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Honeyford, please take your seat. I raised that because the issue has to be clearly stated in the motion. If you want to talk about the war, or whatever it happens to be, please do not do it in this debate. Thank you.

Mr Honeyford: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

The motion mentions the cost of living. I am talking directly about the cost of living. People outside the Building are feeling it every day of the week, whether they are heating their home, paying for their electricity or putting fuel in their car. Please do not tell me that this is not about the cost-of-living crisis that is happening directly because of the war in the Middle East, and I will not be told not to speak on that issue. I am sorry. I will not; I will continue. This is about the DUP's delusional friend Trump's decisions to allow that war to go on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Honeyford, please take your seat.

Mr Honeyford: Do you want a hand signal?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Honeyford, we treat each other with respect in this Chamber. I have made a ruling on the matter because we want the debate to continue. If you wish to continue to challenge me, you can do that through other avenues, but not in the debate at this moment. If you wish to continue speaking, you should keep your focus as I have already directed. If you have other views on that, you should not continue to speak.

Mr Honeyford: Sorry, but I am elected by the people of Lagan Valley to speak for them.

I will not be told what I can and cannot say in the Chamber about what they pay for their fuel and the price that they pay for goods. I will talk on this motion. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am here to speak for the people, not to be directed by a Speaker about what I can and cannot say in the Chamber.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Honeyford, resume your seat.

Mrs Erskine: I support the motion and will give voice to the real concerns being felt by families, farmers and ratepayers across Northern Ireland. When we lose sight of those groups, something is wrong about what we are doing here. When dogmatic ideology wins the day over the real questions that people are asking about the outlandish climate change targets, it is time to question where we are at.

Let me be clear from the outset: this debate is not about whether we should care for the environment. Of course we should care for the environment. We all share a responsibility to protect the natural beauty of our countryside and leave it in a better condition for future generations. However, the motion rightly challenges the growing gap between aspirational climate change targets and the practical reality facing our communities. When targets become detached from delivery, ordinary people pay the price. We are now seeing the consequences of poorly aligned legislation in real time, yet there is no impetus from Ministers to deal directly with that legislation, which is crucifying our Departments. The provisions of the Climate Change Act have been found in the courts to obstruct progress, such as the long-awaited A5 road upgrade — a project that is about not just infrastructure but saving lives, improving connectivity and supporting economic growth in the west of the Province. The implications do not stop there. Critical schemes, including the A4 Enniskillen bypass and the A1 upgrade, are all paused. Until when? Nobody can answer that. All the while, the cost increases.

Mr Blair: I really appreciate the Member's giving way. I hope that she accepts that I genuinely could not do so for her earlier because the clock was against me, and I showed that it was.

I thank the Member for taking the intervention and ask her this in good faith. If I accept, as I do, that she thinks that the road is being held up by the Climate Change Act — her colleague said earlier that that road had been held up for 10 years — may I ask for the rationale for that? If the road has been held up for 10 years and the Act came in four years ago, how can we account for the other six years during which it was held up?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Mrs Erskine: The Member clearly has not read the court judgement.

We must ask ourselves a simple question: what is the point of setting targets if they prevent us from delivering the infrastructure on which our citizens depend? On 3 April, the AERA Minister responded to my question for written answer about whether his Department was undertaking a review of climate change legislation and our ability to meet the 2030 targets. The answer showed that the Minister is unwilling to move at all on that, citing that his focus:

yet we know that there is an issue outside the Chamber about that.

It is equally troubling that the current legal requirement for minimum spend on active travel is having an impact on getting the investment in our basic road maintenance and repairs. When carbon budgets focus on wasteful spending, I ask those who champion net zero targets to tell that to the driver who is navigating pothole-ridden roads and to my rural constituent who has no viable alternative to the car. I am clear about my position on this, but some in the Chamber are not, including the UUP, which says that one word in the motion would change the party's position, yet it did not table an amendment. I will give way on that, if a UUP Member is willing to provide an answer to what word would have allowed them to support the motion.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. Let us not beat about the bush. You are removing the ambition by asking the Minister to remove — illegally, by the way — something that is in statute. It would have been better if you had seen sense and talked sense by revising the figures. That is common sense. Your party prides itself on talking about common sense. You need to deliver motions that have common sense at their core.

Mrs Erskine: I have seen some of the motions that have come from the UUP in the Chamber, so I will not take lectures in that regard.

We cannot ask our agriculture sector, which is already the backbone of our rural economy, to carry additional weight without clarity or fairness. We cannot continue to impose policies on households without fully understanding their financial consequences. That is why the call in my party's motion today is reasonable and necessary. We are asking the Minister to withdraw the current draft plan and understand the concerns. The DUP voted against the climate change legislation, with its net zero targets. We warned of the consequences in the Chamber. We are asking for something that should be the foundation of good governance: a robust, transparent cost-benefit analysis of every net zero-related policy in every Department and arm's-length body. If policy cannot demonstrate economic, environmental and social value, it should not proceed unchecked. We cannot allow legislation to undermine our public services, stall infrastructure or place disproportionate —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close?

Mrs Erskine: — burdens on those who are least able to bear them.

Ms D Armstrong: Climate change is a reality that we must confront — that is undeniable — but our response must be practical, proportionate and honest about what is achievable. The Ulster Unionist Party recognises that the targets that were set in the previous mandate, which were voted on by all parties, set a very high bar. We now accept that those targets were ambitious, and, as matters stand, they appear increasingly unrealistic for 2030. Recent failures on energy, security of supply concerns, the inability to deliver major road infrastructure, and significant barriers to agri-food security, which are all linked to climate targets, mean that we must be realistic and pragmatic. That build-up of failure means that a revision of targets should now be seriously considered. Scotland has shown that, when targets do not work, they can be revised and a new framework put in place. Northern Ireland should not shy away from doing the same.

The implications of the Climate Change Act are already being felt. The High Court's ruling on the A5 road upgrade is not an isolated case. It casts a shadow over vital projects, including the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass and the A29 Cookstown bypass. It raises serious doubts about whether essential schemes can proceed without being derailed by compliance hurdles. Active travel ring-fencing compounds that, perversely restricting investment in basic road maintenance. In rural constituencies such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where cars are essential and public transport is limited, spending £430,000 on a 1·1 km footway while potholes go unrepaired is not balance; it is misalignment.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that that is the very point? Due to the legislation, the Department for Infrastructure is unable to move money to where the real need is, which is rural roads that are crumbling at the minute and roads that are totally impassable for civilians and vehicles?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Member for his intervention. It is about the allocation of funds and looking at where those funds are best used. In a rural context, one questions the viability of that spending when there are so many other urgent issues.

The structural failures are equally stark. The restrictive grip of the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) and Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE), combined with glacial departmental reform, means that renewable connections are expensive, slow and laden with penalties for developers. Planning remains a nightmare for investors. Looking east from the Antrim hills, you can see developments in Scotland that are built in a fifth of the time at a third of the cost. There is no strategic view on storage, whether battery, pumped storage or otherwise, and interventions such as the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme are too little, too late.

Farmers continue to shoulder the heaviest burden, despite having the fewest alternatives. Livestock reductions threaten farm incomes and food processing in a region that is a major UK food producer. The answer is technology, efficiency and innovation, not blunt cuts that undermine rural livelihoods.

The Audit Office has found that £170 million has been spent on net zero initiatives, yet progress is lagging considerably, and value for money is difficult to assess. That record does not justify doubling down without reform. Northern Ireland has a genuine role to play in meeting the UK's wider climate ambitions, but we cannot break our people or our industries pursuing goals that are unachievable in their current form.

As a party, we agree with the thrust of the motion and the call for the Assembly to take steps to task every Department with conducting a cost-benefit analysis of all net zero-related policies within their remit. Climate policy and infrastructure delivery can and must work hand in hand, not in conflict. However, the UUP would support a revision of the draft climate action plan but not its removal. We must work towards ensuring a new draft plan in 2027 that is specific, measurable, ambitious and timely. While we work towards protecting our planet in the long term, we must recalibrate those balancing acts so that we can ensure that we protect livelihoods, build our infrastructure and have full food and fuel security.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, having taken all the relevant factors into consideration, I have decided to apply a grace period of up to 15 minutes to accommodate the three Members wishing to speak.

Ms Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, may I ask for a ruling from the Speaker under Standing Order 17 around speeches in the Assembly and order in the Assembly on whether correct protocol was followed, as David Honeyford was not asked to discontinue his speech?

Secondly, may I request a ruling from the Speaker on whether the ruling of irrelevancy on David Honeyford's speech was appropriate, given that he was referencing his potential causes of the cost-of-living crisis, which is directly mentioned in the motion?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. We shall consider the Speaker's rulings and revert to you.

Mr Gaston: At its heart, the motion is about putting the public and public services ahead of ideology. Every pound spent by the Executive on green ideology while they chase the fantasy of net zero is money diverted from struggling front-line public services. Every road project delayed or scrapped, be it the A5, the Enniskillen bypass or, basically, any major project that you care to mention, impacts on ordinary people in the here and now. Ask any man or woman on the street what they expect from government and what our priorities should be, and no one will say, "We need to prioritise net zero". They want to go about their lives. They want basic infrastructure to be able to do that. They want to cut red tape. Net zero targets get in the way of all of that.

The reality is that even those opposed to the motion complain about the outworking of the very policies that they advocate. Who among Sinn Féin opposes the A5? Who among the SDLP or Alliance opposes the A5? Surprisingly today, who among the Ulster Unionists now opposes the A5? You need to ask which wing is speaking, because the deputy leader seems to be on a different page from the Chair of AERA Committee. The legislation that they pushed for and the green policies that they championed have torpedoed that project and destroyed thousands of acres on the way through.

Green ideology has resulted in the legal paralysis of all future infrastructure projects. All too often, it is the very infrastructure projects that the green lobby brigade in the House are so keen on. We do not need to prioritise cycle lanes while potholes litter our roads as people try to get to work. We do not need green tape restricting the developments that are necessary to drive our economy forward.

As one thinks of that issue in the round, I am reminded of a biblical proverb: "Physician, heal thyself". Let us talk about the 200,000 tons of sewage that is discharged into Lough Neagh each year or the 20 million tons of untreated sewage that enters Northern Ireland's waterways each year.

There is no greater champion of green ideology than the Agriculture Minister, however.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Let us also talk about the £100 million-plus that has been spent on the A5 road without one single piece of tar being laid.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. Not 1 square metre of tar has been laid, yet thousands of acres of land have been destroyed in the process.

Let me return to talking about our Agriculture Minister. He remains the man who lets Northern Ireland Water off the hook. Mr Kearney did not take my intervention earlier when I wanted to point out to him —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, you have already heard my rulings about Trump. Can you focus your remarks on the A5? It is very germane to be talking about —.

Ms McLaughlin: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the elephant in the room. He caused the war, and there is a cost-of-living crisis. It is in the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sinéad McLaughlin, thank you very much indeed. I can read the motion. I was referring to Mr Gaston's reference to sewage and all the rest of it, and I am asking him to return to the issue of the A5 and the Climate Change Act. We were not going there. Your comments are noted, however. Over to you, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I heed your ruling.

I will respond to Mr Kearney's remarks. He failed to take my intervention when he was pointing out all the problems. When it comes to climate change and cleaning up our environment, what is his party's Minister doing? She holds the portfolio in the Department for Infrastructure, which is another zealot-controlled Department that is doing nothing but blaming everyone else. I see that the Agriculture Minister is to make a statement on the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) after the debate on this motion, and serious questions remain about what has been happening at that facility outside Hillsborough when it comes to meeting basic environmental standards.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, there will be ample opportunity to talk about that when the Minister makes his statement. Let us concentrate on the motion before us. Mr Gaston, you have been in this game long enough now to know what you are supposed to be doing and what you are not. Over to you. Try to keep on track.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I will try my best, but I believe that the two are linked.

I will move on to page 27 of the draft Northern Ireland climate action plan. It states that there will be devastating cuts to our agrisector as a result of delivering a reduction in the number of livestock by 2030. We talk about tinkering with the figures. With what figures would the Ulster Unionists like to tinker? Is it the 22% reduction in dairy cattle, the 17% reduction in beef cattle or the 18% reduction in the sheep, pig and poultry sectors? Those are all very live issues. Shall we talk about the Climate Commissioner that this place so desperately needs? That is a million-pound cost at a time that we do not have money to fund basic front-line services. This place wants to prioritise £1 million to give a war chest to an environmental zealot with 15 staff to ravage our agriculture industry.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: On a point of correction, it is £3 million.

Mr Gaston: Oh, £3 million. That Climate Commissioner would therefore get more than any other commissioner located within the Executive. That shows us the folly of the priorities.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Mr Lyons.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member also note that there is already a UK-wide commissioner? We would therefore be duplicating that work, which is something that the House was aware of when it foolishly voted for a commissioner for here.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely, and that shows us the folly of the net zero zealots and the green-welly brigade in this place. I am absolutely astonished that they are being propped up and cheered on by the Ulster Unionists in the House today. We need to get our priorities right, and going after the fantasy of achieving net zero will cripple industries that put food on our plates. Food security will be put at risk —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — if the House continues down the dangerous route of going after net zero.

Mr Burrows: I will avoid mentioning the T-word — Trump — lest I get in trouble. [Interruption.]

In all seriousness, how we get the balance right between looking after our climate in the long term and how we look after jobs and lives and have the ability to build hospitals, roads and all the other infrastructure that we need is one of the defining challenges of our time. How do we have food security and how do we help with the cost of living, particularly for those who have the least? Often, those who have the most to say about climate live in the biggest homes and have the most disposable income. We need to live in the real world.

I read recently that a plane on its journey changes its flight path about every five minutes. When we start on a journey of climate change looking ahead to 2050, it is inevitable that we will sometimes have to change our flight path, because we change with the facts. That does not mean that you throw out your wanting to get to the destination. It just changes the flight path — the way and the "how" of getting there — and the cost that you are prepared to incur in the meantime.

We believe in a clean world and a healthy planet, with clean water and clean air. We also believe in our farmers. I will put on record the fact that our farmers in Northern Ireland feed about 20% of the United Kingdom. I am very proud of that; I come from and represent North Antrim, and that is the heartbeat of our constituency.

We have to have SMART targets — we all know the acronym: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely — but they should be stretching. Nobody should suggest that we should throw out stretching targets that make us work and flex every sinew, but they have to be achievable. If your targets are not achievable, you will undermine your own cause, because you will fuel the climate change deniers by creating cynicism, and you will get people's backs up as they see the cost of living soaring and projects not being delivered.

There is therefore a need for that elusive Goldilocks balance, but we have not got it. There should be no shame in saying that, having passed legislation, you sometimes have to revise it. You might revise targets up or down; you change with the facts.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will.

Mrs Erskine: Does the Member agree that, given that Scotland has looked at this and revised some of its targets, it is disappointing that the Minister, in answering a question from me, has said that he would not look at whether the targets would be achievable in Northern Ireland? We need to review them, because we can see the impact that they have on all our Departments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Burrows: We absolutely should revise them. If you fail to make the small, incremental changes as and when, you will end up on a completely different flight path from the one that you intended to go on, and you will crash into a mountain: that is the reality.

Let me say a couple of other things. Infrastructure is an issue when it comes to climate. It is not just about setting the targets. There are farmers in my constituency who want to put in a more environmentally friendly facility but cannot do so because of delays in planning, and they cannot access the grid or water. All those things are our responsibility. At times, people in our society and in our politics hammer the farmer and do not take cognisance of the people who are struggling with the cost of living. We need to reduce the cost of things such as fuel but accept that there will sometimes be an offset of that.

I will bring this back to the nub of the issue: we need to find balance in life and in law. There is now a need to revise the targets. That is not to say that they should be withdrawn — throwing the baby out with the bathwater — but that there should be sensible revision so that we can build and we can look after food security and so that people can live comfortably today but that, in the future, we will have the cleanest possible planet.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member referenced the absolute need for the export market, particularly for our beef and lamb meat products, which make up about 80% of what is produced here. Most of that goes to supermarkets, which demand that the stamp on the product states that it is environmentally ethically sourced, which puts the burden on producers.

Mr Burrows: Yes: 100%. Those are the intricacies that the public do not listen to when we are interested in just a TikTok click, a sound bite or in digging at each other. I welcome the Member's intervention.

There is much merit in the motion. I am delighted that we are talking about it, because we should be debating these very issues.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that we need to pay tribute to the farming community, which has complied with and followed the regulations? The amount of regulation that farmers have to shoulder and how they have adapted the biosecurity measures on their premises are often overlooked. That needs to be recognised in the debate.

Mr Burrows: I pay tribute to them. Having spoken to more farmers since I started in this place, I am in awe of them. Their knowledge of science and innovation and their desire to innovate and do things differently are amazing.

I will conclude —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Burrows: I conclude by saying that I welcome the motion, although we have an issue —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Burrows: — with withdrawal. That is me concluded, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Carroll: The motion is dressed up as being about concern for ratepayers and rural communities, when, in reality, it is a direct attack on climate legislation that working-class people need the most. [Inaudible.]

Mr Carroll: I do not know what the Communities Minister is mumbling about, but I will give way to him in a second, if he wants to intervene.

Let us be honest about what actually causes our crumbling roads and failing infrastructure. It is not climate targets but decades of chronic underinvestment, an over-reliance on private car usage and a catastrophic failure to expand our public transport network. The DUP has been central to the Budgets that have gutted our public services and worsened the cost-of-living crisis for communities. Blaming the Climate Change Act for potholes and delayed road schemes is grade-A spoofing, and people will not be fooled by it.

The North was far behind other jurisdictions on reducing emissions before that legislation was enacted. I agree with the Member for Foyle that the problem is not that we have moved too fast; the problem is that the Executive have dragged their feet for 20 years and are now looking for someone else to blame. The DUP tends to blame asylum seekers for the housing crisis, and now it blames limited climate legislation for roads not being built. The mind certainly does boggle. The framing of the cost-of-living crisis in the motion is really cynical. Climate change legislation, albeit limited, is important, and it does not make life financially harder for people.

I thank the RSPB for its helpful briefing ahead of the debate on the motion. Its recent polling found that 86% of people here want to the Executive to do more, not less, on nature restoration, and that 89% of people want them to take more, not less, action to protect nature for future generations. Obviously, that includes farmers. It is worth challenging. Farmers are not one homogenous block, and they do not buy the DUP's climate change denial, hook, line and sinker. The public are not asking us to gut climate protections; they are asking us to act. That is unequivocal. Failing to invest now means paying a far steeper price later financially — never mind the human cost — in flood damage, energy insecurity and destroyed infrastructure.

It is worth looking at examples of what works. The Garron plateau restoration project delivers £3·90 for every £1 invested, and peatland restoration, in general, reduces the risk of flood by 27%. That is what genuine cost-benefit analysis looks like. The cost of inaction eclipses the cost of action, every time. That, of course, is not mentioned in the motion.

The motion also cynically pits investment in our roads against active travel. The Walk Wheel Cycle Trust rightly points out that investment in active travel means wider, safer pavements for disabled people, parents with prams and people who cycle. It is the only form of travel that benefits our health, economy and environment at the same time. A few extra cycle lanes could be beneficial, given the scale of traffic chaos on motorways today.

Think about it: the DUP does not want holiday hunger payments, and it does not want more cycle lanes and cycle infrastructure. The mind certainly does boggle. Despite that, active travel funding has already been reallocated to support road repairs and to subsidise street lighting.

Finally, I will address the brass neck of the DUP, which tabled the motion. The party that presided over the renewable heat incentive scandal, burning through hundreds of millions of pounds of public money through a shambolic and fraudulent scheme, now wants to lecture us about fiscal responsibility and value for money. That would be laughable if this were not so serious. That audacity is breathtaking. Those are the last people who should be demanding a cost-benefit analysis from anyone.

In recent days, the DUP has been pushing hard for a unionist seat for West Belfast. It is, of course, up to the electorate to determine who gets elected there.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I sincerely ask the DUP this: what good is it having that seat on the Shankill if people on the Shankill and the Falls are under water, given the policies that you advocate? That is the trajectory that you want us to go on. I am happy to give way to the Minister.

Mr Lyons: I am not speaking as Minister, but I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He talks about a cost-benefit analysis. In the House, we were presented with information from the independent Climate Change Commission that stated that the difference in cost for us between a 82% reduction target and a 100% reduction target would be up to £900 million per year. Where is he getting the money from for that? Do you know where it will come from? It will hit working people the hardest. The Member claims to speak for working people, but his policies do more damage to working people than those of anyone else.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving a short speech. There is plenty of money about, Minister. You are able to speak if you want to, but maybe your time would be better spent trying to tackle the housing crisis, which you are failing to do.

Mr Lyons: Maybe your time would be better spent answering the question.

Mr Carroll: Through the Deputy Speaker, I dispute —.

Mr Lyons: You cannot answer the question, because you are a spoofer.

Mr Carroll: I will answer the question —.

Mr Lyons: You are a spoofer.

Mr Carroll: I will answer the question if you will let me speak. Come on. Calm down a wee bit there. You can also speak if you want to. To address the question, I dispute the figures that the Minister has outlined, but I am happy to look at them. I say this quite clearly to the Minister: if we do not act, it will have a financial and human impact. People are dying every single year, probably in your constituency and in mine, because of dirty air. Not acting is costing lives, and it will cost more money down the line. If you want to look at where money can be taken from to tackle the climate crisis, have a look at the amount of money that your Department is spending on subsidising landlords because of huge rents every single year.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Carroll, your time is up.

Mr Carroll: There is plenty of money, and there are plenty of options. I urge Members and the Minister to vote against the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have 15 minutes. Over to you.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly on the motion concerning the delivery of public services and major infrastructure projects and the call for a cost-benefit analysis of net zero policies. At the outset, I need to be absolutely clear that I fundamentally disagree with the central premise of the motion. It suggests that our climate targets are merely aspirational and that the draft climate action plan should be withdrawn. Climate targets are not aspirational; they are statutory. They were passed with overwhelming support by the Assembly. Every Department has a duty to comply with the Climate Change Act. I have no authority to disregard that obligation or withdraw the climate action plan. The Act requires that a climate action plan be brought forward every five years, and the Executive are already playing catch-up due to the previous collapse of these institutions. Climate legislation is not something that we can opt in and out of based upon short-term pressures. It is a framework that is designed to safeguard Northern Ireland's social, economic and environmental well-being for future generations.

Since taking up office as Minister, I have focused on accelerating delivery. We now have our first three legally binding carbon budgets, interim carbon emissions targets and a new climate adaptation plan. We have made significant progress on Northern Ireland's first climate action plan and have been actively working to establish a just transition commission for Northern Ireland, ensuring that fairness is at the heart of this work.

The impacts of climate change are here, and they are unmistakable. Ignoring the crisis will not make those events less frequent or less costly. The fact that we have experienced the wettest January in 149 years, major flooding in Downpatrick and Newry, which impacted on homes, businesses and infrastructure, and storm Éowyn, which alone cost Departments more than £17 million and left hundreds of thousands without power, demonstrates that clearly. Such events disrupt public services, damage infrastructure and place enormous financial strain on departmental budgets. They also have a profound impact on the citizens whom we are here to represent.

Analysis has shown that public support for climate action remains strong. The existence of a more polarised and negative discourse is not supported by the evidence. For example, the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) are unequivocal: delaying climate action will cost significantly more than acting early in a planned and proportionate way. The Office for Budget Responsibility warns that climate damages could reduce UK GDP by 8% by the 2070s. Failing to act would undermine the very infrastructure and public services that the motion claims to defend.

The motion also calls for the draft climate action plan to be withdrawn. The Act imposes legal duties on all Departments to provide policies and proposals to meet Northern Ireland's carbon budgets. Those budgets were agreed democratically by the Assembly. The draft climate action plan reflects contributions from all Departments. It is not discretionary work; it is statutory work. If Departments fail to comply with their legal obligations, the consequences are clearly known, and the uncertainty that could arise is also very well known. It would help no one, least of all our farmers, households and businesses that need clarity and direction.

The motion also cites the A5 judgement and minimum active travel spending requirements. It is important to be accurate about the legal context and the role of the Climate Change Act. I am limited in what I can say about the ongoing A5 legal proceedings, which are currently under appeal. However, climate considerations should not be an obstacle to development. Therefore, appealing the judgement is critical, and I am working closely with the Infrastructure Minister on the issue. It is essential that we clarify the interpretation of the legislation so that it can be fully implemented as intended.

Active travel investment does not prevent essential road repairs. Spending on maintaining active travel infrastructure is vital and contributes significantly to making our streets safer and more accessible for some of the most vulnerable groups of road users. Investing in the development of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure helps to provide healthier, safer and more sustainable travel choices, which ultimately reduces congestion, improves air quality and supports economic productivity.

The motion further suggests that some proposals in the draft climate action plan are not quantified. It is correct that not every proposal will show immediate emissions reductions by 2027, but that does not mean that the polices lack value — far from it. If we focus only on what delivers short-term emissions savings, we will fail to meet the long-term legal targets and expose Northern Ireland to even greater economic and social risks from climate impacts. Many early-stage policies are foundational. The research, pilots, enabling frameworks and preparatory work will unlock larger emissions savings in the next carbon budget period. Some of the difficult long-term structural changes that are required to meet our second carbon budget, which is a 48% reduction by 2032, need to begin now if they are to be delivered on time.

The motion calls for a new system-wide cost-benefit analysis of all net zero policies: that is neither necessary nor proportionate. All policies of the Northern Ireland Executive are subject to the same set of rules, which seek to ensure that public money is not wasted or used inappropriately. That already includes economic impact assessment screening and, if required, business case development. If a policy action involves the allocation of public money, a proportionate business case will be required. All programmes and projects that are delivered to support the policies listed in the climate action plan are already subject to those requirements.

Moreover, the Climate Change Committee's analysis shows that the overall benefits of reaching net zero could outweigh the costs by more than three to one. Its latest analysis shows that, once the impacts on households, businesses and the public purse are added up, a single fossil fuel price spike can cost as much as delivering the entire recommended route to net zero.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Minister giving way. He has talked about the cost-benefit analysis. Will he give us his view on the independent Climate Change Committee's letter to his most recent predecessor as Agriculture Minister, which stated that a 50% fall in meat and dairy production in Northern Ireland is not enough to get to net zero emissions in Northern Ireland by 2050?

Mr Muir: I will reply to you as an MLA. I am very conscious of the advice from the CCC. I am also conscious of the question that was asked because the answer is very specific to that. I will set out the road map that we are presenting for agriculture, which is fundamental to the sustainable agriculture programme, and we are implementing good measures to support the farming community in Northern Ireland. The draft climate action plan does not seek herd reduction, and it is important for me to clarify that point.

I will continue. We must act on the substantial evidence that is already available, rather than create new layers of bureaucracy. I reiterate that delaying action will not save money; it will cost us more, economically, socially and environmentally, in the long run.

Over the period 2023-27, capital has and will be invested through the implementation of climate action plan policies and proposals across the Northern Ireland Executive. Not all interventions are new. Some of the costs are already part of the existing programmes and budgets. Section 31 of the Act requires DAERA to:

It will deliver funding for the capital elements of the policies and proposals for the agriculture sector that are included in the draft climate action plan, and that fund is already established.

It will also support matters, because the motion claims that climate policies place:

I fully recognise the real pressures faced by both. Farmers already experience the consequences of climate change at first hand through intense rainfall, soil degradation, disease pressures and increased market volatility. Climate action is not optional for the agriculture sector; it is central to protecting farm incomes, strengthening resilience and securing the future of the sector.

Public investment in agriculture carries an expectation of environmental delivery, and that is being delivered in spades. Supporting farmers to take practical, proportionate action in climate and nature is essential to maintaining confidence in farm support, demonstrating value for public money and safeguarding that support into the future. We are not proposing to follow the Climate Change Committee's recommended livestock reductions; instead, our focus is on practical measures that help farmers cut emissions while protecting productivity. Schemes within our sustainable agriculture programme, including the beef sustainability package, the Farming with Nature package and the carbon footprinting project, aim to support farmers to do that.

For households, climate action delivers clear, practical benefits: more energy-efficient homes; lower energy bills; warmer homes and better living conditions; cleaner air; and greater energy security. That is why climate action is not an additional cost; it is an investment in our society and a shield against future economic shocks.

To succeed, the transition must be fair. That is why the principle of a just transition is central to all of this. I am committed to establishing the just transition commission within this mandate to ensure fairness and to support rural communities, workers and businesses through change. The commission will include representation from agriculture, rural stakeholders, industry, academia and civic society. We should be clear about the alternative. Weakening our climate targets or halting climate planning would create uncertainty and leave society, business and our economy regionally and globally isolated. With over three quarters of global GDP now covered by net zero commitments, we cannot afford to be left behind.

The motion misdiagnoses the problem and proposes actions that are not consistent with our legislation and are economically unwise. Northern Ireland needs a clear, credible, collective and legally compliant path to net zero. The Climate Change Act requires it, and the climate action plan provides it. I am committed to delivering it in a fair, evidence-based and practical way. For those reasons, I cannot support the motion; instead, I will continue to work across government and with our farmers, businesses and communities to build a more resilient, competitive and sustainable Northern Ireland, one that protects the interests of this generation and, importantly, the next.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Jonny Buckley to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Buckley: I had hoped that we would have a sensible debate today, a moment of reflection on past net zero targets that are, frankly, crippling infrastructure, our businesses and our households. It appears that that hope was misplaced. Outside the Building, farmers, truckers and key workers are protesting — they are up in arms — about the cost of fuel and energy and a system that is designed against their interests, but there was not one mention of that from the major parties opposite. Why?

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will make some progress.

I am obviously touching a nerve. The parties opposite have so deeply bought into the net zero agenda that they are no longer willing to even question it, no matter the cost to the people whom they purport to represent. The Alliance Party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin and, sadly — I say it with regret — the Ulster Unionist Party, it appears, are not going to support the motion. Let me ask a simple question: why? Why vote against a motion that asks your Departments to carry out a cost-benefit analysis and remove harmful departmental plans?

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will come back in a moment. Why vote against transparency? Why vote against allowing the public to see clearly and honestly the true cost of policies that will affect every home, farm and business in this country?

Is it blind allegiance, or is it something else? Perhaps it is a reluctance to admit the scale of the burden that you are placing on working families.

The problem for the parties opposite is simple: they are living in a complete fantasy world. You cannot run a country on targets that have not been properly costed, and you cannot ask people to make sacrifices without being honest about what those sacrifices will mean and, more importantly, what the cost will be. You can snigger all that you like, but the working families in the communities of Northern Ireland who are on the street protesting out of fear for their livelihoods are not sniggering. Rather, they are angry at policies that you continue to prop up.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Correct. Good namecheck. Direct your remarks through the Chair. Thank you.

Mr Buckley: That is exactly what is happening. We are told that it is necessary and urgent, but let us take a step back and look at the reality. The United Kingdom produces about 1% of global carbon emissions: 1%. Northern Ireland produces 0·04% of global emissions. Let me repeat that figure: 0·04%. Members, however, come to the Chamber and act as if we are the world's thermostat. Major countries such as China, India, Brazil and the USA are laughing at the continued folly of the many parties that are devoid of all common sense when it comes to the realities facing communities every day. Yes, we must care for the earth and are called to do so, but we are also called to care for the people who live on it. Right now, the agenda is failing those people. We cannot have growth without energy. We cannot help families by taking from them. What we are witnessing are uncosted, radical economic experiments dressed up as policy, and that policy is being pushed on people who never asked for it in the first place. It hits families, workers and small businesses.

What are the consequences? Let us look at infrastructure, which is something that this country desperately needs. Sinn Féin's Minister for Infrastructure is overseeing a national fiasco in her Department, and that is not even to mention the potholes on our roads. The A5 road project, which is an Executive flagship project, was halted by the courts because of the very amendments on climate change and net zero targets that Sinn Féin backed. Over £100 million of public money was spent on the A5, but not one bit of tar was laid. That is completely scandalous.

Mr McAleer comes into the Chamber as if he is the farmer's friend, but he was a co-signatory to the very climate change amendments that have held up the A5 project in the courts. We will therefore take no lectures from Sinn Féin about support for key road infrastructure. The A1 road safety project and the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass project have been halted, and many more projects will be affected, so I ask this again: who are you trying to bluff? Your net zero targets are not abstract. They are being used to stop roads being built. They are delaying critical infrastructure and holding back development. At the same time, what do we see money being spent on? Cycle lanes to nowhere. The reality is that your priorities are being dictated by the very targets that you claim to support, and that is only the beginning. If we do not change course, it will become an anchor around the neck of this place's economic prosperity.

The Alliance Party speaks of carbon taxes and climate change plans.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment, if I have time.

What do carbon taxes and climate change plans mean to the ordinary person? They mean higher heating bills, higher food costs, fewer family farms, more expensive travel and less money at the end of the month. That burden will not be carried by the few, Members. Rather, it will be carried by the many, because, while ordinary people are being asked to cut back and do without, billionaires fly across the world in private jets to climate change summits and others want to launch rockets into the sky. Members, it is not a shared sacrifice. This is a two-tiered policy and the ordinary man and woman are footing the bill.

Meanwhile, the SDLP tells us that the UK is not moving fast enough. Those Members call themselves social democrats. You cannot claim to stand with working families whilst simultaneously supporting policies that drive up the cost of living. John Hume once said, "You can't eat a flag." I would argue that you cannot feed a family with a climate change target. Those policies hit families, farms and front-line workers. We all want clean air, clean land and a better future for our children. That is not in dispute. However, good intentions are not enough.

A Member: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

Policy has to work. It has to be grounded in reality, affordable and fair. My constituents are not choosing between luxuries. They are not choosing between the sports car and the second home. Members, they are choosing between heating and eating. That is the reality of what we live with today, yet the so-called socialists in the Chamber, such as Mr Carroll, have forgotten their roots and that every pound that is added to energy costs, food bills and transport comes out of the pockets of working families. The people of West Belfast will have their say on his policies. Let us get beyond the spin. When we talk about carbon reduction in those policies, action plans and targets, we are talking about increased costs. We punish ourselves whilst the rest of the world carries on.

The motion is not extreme or unreasonable. It is a simple request that we look properly, across every Department, at the cost of net zero policies.

Mr Blair: Donald Trump [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: Let us focus on what is in the room, Mr Blair, and the cost of net zero policies. Let us provide transparency so that we allow the public to see the financial impact of decisions that are made in their name. Those policies will cost hundreds of millions of pounds, if not more, yet Members from the parties opposite are prepared to vote against the very basis of that scrutiny; to vote against asking Departments what the costs of those crazy, wacky, unattainable targets have meant for the people of Northern Ireland. They should hang their heads in shame. What are you afraid of? If you want to stand up and say that those policies are not costing but have a benefit, vote for the motion and allow your Departments to come forward with those policies. The public are waiting and will be watching every single vote.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I invite Members to take their ease for a few moments while we wait for the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to return.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will update Members on AFBI, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute.

As Members will be aware, AFBI plays a key role in protecting animal health and public health, safeguarding our agri-food economy and providing diagnostic, scientific and emergency response capability when we face disease or other incidents. That role is vital, and it must be delivered to the highest standards. Members have often heard me speak about the challenges facing our environment and agriculture, including those associated with climate change, and the need for us to develop and implement effective policies in response. Those polices must be grounded in sound evidence, and AFBI plays a crucial role in providing the highest quality scientific and research advice and evidence to inform them.

We operate at a time when, worryingly, it is becoming increasingly common to attack science and evidence, particularly when it presents unwelcome or inconvenient truths. In that context, it is even more important that we all have confidence in AFBI's work. That confidence is equally essential for the delivery of statutory scientific services, including laboratory testing and surveillance for animal pathogens, and for the wider scientific support that protects public health and maintains market confidence. In that regard, I am reassured by the fact that AFBI research underpinning policy development in my Department is subject to the extensive use of rigorous external peer review mechanisms and operates in accordance with the requirements of ISO 9001, which is a quality management system.

AFBI's capability to respond to emergencies quickly, safely and effectively is a critical part of our overall resilience. Farmers, the food industry, our partners and the wider public should be able to place the highest confidence in AFBI's work and the controls that sit around it. I place on record my appreciation for the professionalism of AFBI staff and the importance of the services that they provide.

Separately, I am equally clear that biosafety, good laboratory working practices, sound governance and robust assurance go hand in hand and are non-negotiable. However, recent issues have emerged that mean that I need stronger and clearer assurance that standards are being applied consistently across AFBI. I will set out for Members what those issues are and explain what I and my Department, supported by the AFBI board, are doing to address them.

I will start by updating Members on a recent inspection report received from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in Great Britain as part of the licensing processes relating to laboratory activity and working with specified animal pathogens in AFBI. The report, which was shared with AFBI, identifies areas where biosafety, laboratory working practices and associated assurance arrangements need to be strengthened.

I reassure the public that AFBI continues to deliver vital diagnostic and surveillance services and that there is robust regulatory oversight in place. That includes accreditation to the internationally recognised standard ISO 17025 in respect of statutory animal health and food safety testing. There is no evidence of any breach or existential risk to public health or animal health, and immediate mitigations are in place to ensure that essential diagnostic and surveillance services continue safely. However, the report makes clear that significant improvements are needed. Those improvements are being implemented as part of an action plan agreed between AFBI and DAERA officials in response to the HSE GB report.

AFBI's laboratory work supports animal health, public health and our wider emergency disease response capability. Where laboratories handle regulated pathogens, strong controls and clear assurance are essential. My priority is to ensure that standards are consistently high and that the necessary assurances are clear, evidenced and sustained. The purpose of the actions that are now under way is to strengthen those arrangements and to provide confidence that requirements are being met consistently.

Members will also be aware of some allegations about practices, including animal welfare and environmental practices, at the AFBI farm at Hillsborough. Some are historical in nature, while others are more recent. I assure the House that every one of those allegations, including, most recently, an incident of low-severity pollution of a watercourse, was followed up on by my Department and the AFBI board. The work of the AFBI farm is of significant research importance, and the farm operations also need to be conducted in a way that does not merely meet required animal welfare and environmental standards. Rather, my expectation is that AFBI should be leading by example in how it manages its farm operations.

As is routinely required for all non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), AFBI has been subject to a review that my Department commissioned. The review team reported to us in February of last year. Although the review found that AFBI's strategic direction is aligned with the priorities of the Executive and my Department and that AFBI is considered to be discharging its primary functions in an effective and efficient manner, it makes several important recommendations, including the need to strengthen partnership working between AFBI and my Department; the need for there to be a stronger focus on strategic priorities; and, importantly, the need for AFBI to improve how it demonstrates impact and drives effectiveness. I have taken time to consider my Department's response to the review, including, most recently, by taking account of the wider context, which I have outlined in my statement. We will shortly publish the review report and my departmental response.

I agree that Departments and their arm's-length bodies (ALBs) should work together effectively in partnership, with clear accountability, strong governance and a shared focus on outcomes. The review of AFBI provides an opportunity to reset arrangements, but, alongside the report's recommendations, the issues now arising require action that is urgent and sustained. I am pleased to report that the AFBI board has responded positively and proactively to the review and to the other issues that have arisen since the review was finalised. Following the recent HSE inspection findings, I have been assured by the AFBI chair that the AFBI chief executive and his team have begun immediate work to identify the issues. AFBI has developed an action plan in response to the HSE in Great Britain inspection, with named ownership and timescales. My officials, supported by HSE colleagues, are engaging directly with AFBI's senior leadership to support rapid delivery and secure the required assurances. I am reassured by the fact that the AFBI board has also set up a dedicated board subgroup, which has reviewed the operation of the farm at Hillsborough and made recommendations for further improvement. Implementation of the resulting action plan for farm operations will be monitored by the board.

I continue to engage with the chair of the AFBI board and have set three immediate challenges that must be addressed. First, I have directed that the AFBI board's top priority in the months ahead must be to address the findings of the HSE report and demonstrate through evidence that testing is consistently carried out safely, effectively and in full compliance with required standards and that governance throughout the organisation is robust. Secondly, in partnership with my Department, the board needs to articulate a clearer strategic direction for the organisation, ensuring that effort and investment are aligned with the highest priorities and deliver the strongest impact for our community, environment and economy. Thirdly, in light of concerns that were previously raised about animal welfare and environmental practices at the AFBI farm, I have asked the board to provide rigorous oversight and clear assurance that farm operations meet the highest standards and that any learning will be embedded.

I recognise that the AFBI board has shown that it can respond decisively to serious issues, including the data breach incident that took place last year and the issues raised at the Hillsborough farm. I now need the same level of grip, pace and transparency to be applied to biosafety, to working practices and to assurance and laboratory operations. The board is accountable to me when it comes to ensuring that the necessary actions are implemented without delay, and it must provide assurances that appropriate actions are being actively monitored.

As an executive, non-departmental public body of DAERA, AFBI is responsible for putting those matters right, in full and at pace. I have therefore asked the board to develop an overall organisational action plan. At the same time, DAERA has a duty to ensure that governance, sponsorship and assurance arrangements are effective. For the weeks and months ahead, urgent, sustained and verifiable action is required. Support will be provided, but that must be matched by strong oversight and clear accountability for delivery.

In response, and as part of a wider reset of sponsorship and governance arrangements through the AFBI review, I am putting in place increased departmental oversight of AFBI, with immediate effect. DAERA officials will work with AFBI to support the development and monitoring of the overall organisational action plan that I have mentioned. In parallel, my officials will apply stronger stewardship and governance to hold AFBI to account for delivery against agreed actions, milestones and evidence requirements. I have asked to receive updates on at least a quarterly basis. That increased oversight and scrutiny of AFBI is with immediate effect and it will remain in place until I am reassured, on the basis of evidence, that AFBI's processes are safe, effective and fully compliant. I expect my officials in DAERA and colleagues in AFBI to work in genuine partnership to bring about the changes that are required to address the issue and at the speed required.

I have assigned responsibility for overseeing necessary changes to my Department's stewardship of AFBI, including its organisational action plan, to my deputy secretary for strategic planning and corporate services. In her role as principal accounting officer, my permanent secretary will establish a senior partnership and governance board immediately, to provide both of us with assurance that AFBI is delivering its services safely and effectively. The board will meet before the end of this month, assess the evidence provided by AFBI and report back without delay. It will then meet quarterly or more frequently if required. AFBI must provide evidence of the actions taken, the controls in place for biosafety, laboratory working practices and the timescales for completion of any outstanding measures.

The Chief Veterinary Officer has already requested that the Health and Safety Executive Great Britain engage with AFBI and my officials on the action plan, in response to the HSE GB inspection. It will carry out a follow-up inspection within the next two months. At that stage, I fully expect to see the required improvements in place and operating effectively, supported by clear evidence and assurance.

I am confident that, through the actions that I have set out, we can ensure that AFBI delivers the high-quality services that our farmers, industry and the public rightly expect. Thank you.

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much for your statement, Minister. You said:

Will you please elaborate on what those specific issues are and the "urgent and sustained" action that is required?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. A number of action plans are being implemented. The most immediate one is in relation to the laboratories, in response to the HSE GB report. It is important that the recommendations from that report are implemented at pace. Separate to that, there is an overall organisational action plan that we developed in conjunction with AFBI. It is a collective endeavour to ensure that those organisational improvements occur.

There are also the recommendations from the AFBI board's subgroup on the farm at Hillsborough. It is important that those are taken forward. Recommendations have also come back on the data breach, and it is important that those are implemented.

There are lots of actions, and my Department will work with AFBI to ensure that they are delivered.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for this important statement. It has not been a great year for AFBI. We have had the whistle-blowing allegations, the data breach and, now, the HSE GB report. I commend the Minister for his candour and for taking responsibility for the matter, because the buck does indeed stop with you, Minister. How can you restore confidence in AFBI and, particularly, transparency? I know that I speak for Committee members in saying that we want to play our part in holding your feet to the fire to ensure that AFBI is what it should be.

Mr Muir: It is important that, as Minister, I show leadership. That is why I came to the House today to outline the actions that are being taken. It is important that the organisational action plan and the recommendations from the HSE GB report are implemented at pace. I believe in transparency around this, and that is the default on this. As a Committee, you will have a role to play in following up on today's statement, and I reassure you that officials from my Department and from AFBI are keen to engage with you on this issue.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I had two parts to my question, but you have kind of answered the second part, which was on what AFBI and DAERA are doing in response to the need for significant improvements. What key findings does the Health and Safety Executive report highlight regarding the risks to public and animal health? You kind of answered the second part when you talked about action plans.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Linda. The HSE GB inspection was undertaken, and the report outlined that there were weaknesses in administrative and governance arrangements, including systems for oversight and assurance; deficiencies in procedures and controls required to ensure effective biocontainment; and concerns relating to infrastructure and facility condition, particularly where higher containment standards are required. On biosafety, evidence was lacking to ensure that facilities were fit for purpose and safe to use. There were gaps in organisational capability to consistently demonstrate compliance with required biosafety standards. At the time of inspection, the testing procedures for the bluetongue virus were found to be unsafe, with measures required to protect the environment. Fortunately, at the time of the inspection and since the time of the incursion of bluetongue, Northern Ireland has been in a vector low period. Therefore, the risk of onward transmission from AFBI facilities is negligible.

With the upcoming start of the vector active period, to address the recommendations of the HSE report for bluetongue, a triage protocol is being finalised by AFBI to ensure that diseased material from animals suspected to have the bluetongue virus is not accepted at AFBI for post-mortem, and diagnostic swabs and blood samples are accepted only where the necessary containment facilities are in place. That will be fully communicated to AFBI stakeholders. A further recommendation was that protocols in operation at the time of the inspection on testing for aviation influenza should stop. The Department has put in place contingency measures to ensure that samples can be taken for diagnostic submission to facilities that can satisfy containment requirements.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Has any risk to public health, animal health or trade been identified as a result of the weaknesses that were found?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Tom. There was no existential risk to public, animal or staff safety, however matters need to be addressed to ensure that confidence can continue in the future. AFBI processes a number of pathogens that are known to present risks. Where appropriate working conditions are applied, along with personal protective equipment, those risks are minimal, if not very low. A finding of the report was that no vector/midge protective measures are present in AFBI and that higher-risk diagnostic work was progressing in an open laboratory at containment level 2 (CL2) where the guidance required containment level 3 (CL3) facilities. Fortunately, at the time of inspection and since the time of incursion of bluetongue, Northern Ireland has been in a vector low period. Therefore, the risk of onward transmission from AFBI facilities is negligible.

Staff safety is always a primary concern. The chief executive of AFBI has provided assurances to me and said:

Mitigations are also in place to protect staff, contractors and visitors to the site.

Mr Blair: What engagement has the Minister had with AFBI regarding the issues covered in the statement?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. I and my officials keep in regular contact with the AFBI board, particularly through its chair, for whom I have the greatest respect. She has been proactive in responding to the concerns raised on the data breach, on the farm issues at Hillsborough and now on the HSE report. I am grateful for her leadership and for the support that she is receiving from her board. I met the AFBI chair and board most recently yesterday, and I have full confidence in them. I will continue to engage with them.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you referenced the need for:

Can you clarify what you mean by that and give us more detail on the changes that are possible in the coming weeks and months?

Mr Muir: Thank you. The AFBI review was undertaken, and the report came back. We have taken time to consider the report and our response to it. As part of that response, there will be that organisational action plan whereby we will work together to implement the recommendations arising from the report and to drive organisational improvement. Doing that together is key, and we will ensure that by having a senior official lead on it and through the partnership board between AFBI and DAERA .

Miss McIlveen: It should go without saying that AFBI ought to be held to a high degree of scrutiny and accountability. There should not be a view that it is one rule for AFBI and another for the local farmer. That said, is the intervention time-bound? I am concerned that, ironically, effectively bringing AFBI in-house in the long term would be detrimental to both AFBI and the wider industry.

Mr Muir: Thank you. I again thank AFBI for its work. I give this clarification: there is no intention to bring AFBI in-house in the long term. The measures that I have outlined today are intended to be short-term, so that we can work together to deliver the actions required and to standardise the sponsorship arrangement for AFBI as an ALB in the months ahead. We will continue to engage and to monitor progress. We will do that transparently, and we will seek to normalise arrangements as soon as possible.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Kellie Armstrong. No?

I call Michelle Guy. No?

I call Nuala McAllister, then. Well done, Chief Whip. [Laughter.]

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Minister, I welcome your taking the initiative by coming here today to keep the House up to date on the progress that you will be making on this new level of scrutiny. Will you keep MLAs up to date on the oversight in future both in Committee and in the Chamber?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Nuala. That is an important question. There is a role for the Committee in scrutinising the issue. No doubt it will want to engage with DAERA officials and AFBI in the short time ahead. It is important that we publish the review and our departmental response in the short time ahead. We will also provide everyone with updates on our actions at least quarterly so that we can be clear on the actions that we are taking in response to the recommendations.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I thank you for your statement. Can you set out how you intend to rebuild confidence in the farming sector following the report and last year's data breach, given the growing perception among many farmers that the high standards rigorously enforced on them are not applied equally to AFBI?

Mr Muir: As part of its overall communications strategy, AFBI is refreshing its stakeholder engagement plans. The board is keen that concerns raised by the agri-food community be recognised. AFBI considers it important to establish a broad stakeholder group that can support understanding of the outcomes of AFBI's science programme and provide a key platform for the views of AFBI's wide and varied stakeholder community to be heard. AFBI has advised that a farmers' forum will be a key focus in the refreshed stakeholder plan.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the Minister's statement. Minister, the recent stories about AFBI have had an impact on public confidence. Are you confident that your action plan and the measures that you are putting in place will go some way towards increasing public confidence?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the issues that you have outlined. I believe in transparency, which is why I am here today. I also believe in action, which is why we are taking forward the actions that I have outlined. There will be regular updates to the Committee on the actions that we are taking, and I have confidence that the chair and the board, in conjunction with our officials, will be able to take the appropriate course so that we can have confidence in AFBI in the time ahead.

Mr Wilson: Minister, you referred in your statement to:

Will you explain that incident and define "low severity"? Under your plans to strengthen enforcement and regulation of water pollution, how would your Department handle a similar incident, were one to occur?

Mr Muir: I will answer that question in two parts.

If anyone in the House is aware of any issues with water pollution or environmental offences, it is important that they report them promptly so that they can be investigated.

I am aware that a water pollution incident involving a spillage of milk occurred at AFBI Hillsborough on 2 April of this year. I am extremely disappointed that that happened. Officials from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) attended the site immediately after receiving the report, which was made by AFBI management. Following investigation, the incident was recorded as being of low severity, having only a minor visual impact on Hillsborough park lake. Investigations by the NIEA and DAERA inland fisheries indicated that there was no impact on the fish population of the lake. I have received assurances from AFBI that the cause has been fully investigated so that there is minimal risk of reoccurrence. The draft report has come back from the AFBI subcommittee that looked at the issues associated with the farm at Hillsborough, and it is important that the recommendations are implemented.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Paula Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My question has just been asked. Sorry.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Jonny Buckley.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hopefully, my question has not been asked.

I thank the Minister for making the statement. I would have liked him to make a statement on the issue earlier. The Minister has committed to publishing the review report and the departmental response. Is the Minister prepared to publish the inspection findings report of HSE GB — the Health and Safety Executive?

Mr Muir: The HSE report was provided to the Department for advisory purposes under the provisions of a memorandum of understanding that is in place to ensure that the Department has the appropriate independent advice on the storing silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oil (SSAFO) regulations in Northern Ireland. Requests to publish all or part of the HSE GB report on AFBI will be considered under existing arrangements for handling data access in relation to sensitive information. The default is full transparency, and we are working on its publication.

Mr Gaston: That was a statement by a Minister who has finally put up the white flag and acknowledged the well-founded concerns that have been raised about AFBI. There was no apology for spreading slurry during the closed period, nothing about blowing slurry and Bovaer milk into the forest and nothing about the full —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — tank of milk —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston. Question, please.

Mr Gaston: There was nothing about the full tank of milk until it was pulled out of you, Minister. A clear cultural issue exists at AFBI. Will you now sit down with Dougie Beattie of GB News and answer his questions, or will you continue to hide from GB News and shy away from scrutiny of the issue?

Mr Muir: I consider the issues that I set out in the oral statement to be of the utmost importance. It is important that there is scrutiny of the actions that I take, and I am here to answer questions from Members on that. I have set out that I encourage officials from the Department and AFBI to be willing and able to attend the Committee for that scrutiny, if the Committee wishes. We will continue with full transparency on the actions that we are taking. It is important that we do that.

Mr K Buchanan: My question follows on from my colleague's question on the pollution incident at the watercourse. It is one question in two parts.

Will there be any financial implications — any financial consequences — for AFBI? I am dealing with a farmer who was involved in no pollution incident, and there will be financial implications for them. Why will there be financial consequences for a farmer who caused no pollution but not for AFBI, which did?

Mr Muir: As the Member is aware, every incident is considered individually and investigated fully. It is important, if Members are aware of any incidents, that they report them promptly, so that veterinary service or the Northern Ireland Environment Agency can investigate them fully. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on any specific incident, but it is important that such issues are reported so that a prompt investigation can take place.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Can we have confidence in the accuracy of previous and current test results from AFBI in light of the HSE GB report?

Mr Muir: All testing at AFBI has been dual accredited by relevant laboratory accreditation bodies for the provision of accurate testing and results. Those bodies are the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) and the Irish National Accreditation Board (INAB). Therefore, test protocols are subject to audit and inspection by independent award bodies. Any risks to test accuracy are highlighted by the accreditation bodies. The likelihood of false positive results is also safeguarded by the confirmation of results by the UK and EU reference laboratories. Officials assessed that current and historical test results from AFBI can be relied on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I bring this to an end, do any further Members wish to ask a question? Our list has been rather complicated. If not, that concludes questions on the statement.

Thank you very much indeed, Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Phillip Brett to raise the matter of lack of NHS dental places in North Belfast.

Phillip, you will have up to 15 minutes. Over to you.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I raise the matter with deep frustration and genuine anger on behalf of those whom I represent, because the stark reality is that NHS dental provision in North Belfast is collapsing, with patient registration at an all-time low, providers being overworked and underpaid and my constituents being forced to either live in pain or register for private provision that they cannot afford. To be frank, the time for talking by the Department of Health is over, and the time for action is now.

The Minister stated to me last February that dental reform was one of his top priorities. If that is the case, I expect today that there will be action for my constituents. To be frank, the measures taken by the Minister to date have had no positive impact on the constituents whom I represent in North Belfast. That is not to take away from the Minister's genuine commitment to the issue, but it is the lived experience of those in my constituency.

At the outset of my remarks, I pay tribute to a number of groups, organisations and individuals, the first of whom are my constituents in North Belfast. When I first launched the campaign just after Christmas, my office was inundated with people — young and old, working and retired — who were simply at their wits' end. Over 300 individuals shared their personal story with me about their desperate search for affordable treatment for them and their family. That shows the scale of the issue.

With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will read into the record a number of those examples. One constituent wrote:

Another said:

Those are but two examples out of the hundreds that my office has received that show the stark reality of what people are facing.

I pay tribute to the dentists and providers right across my constituency who have engaged with me on the issue. They have worked to ensure that they can support as many people as they can, but, frankly, they are now at breaking point. I have spoken to practice managers and providers who have maintained NHS dental places out of a sense of local loyalty and to provide continued care for the patients they have treated, in some cases for a generation, but, based on the support that they receive from the Department of Health, they can no longer do so to the service level required.

I pay tribute to the lobby organisations for dentists in Northern Ireland, some of which are represented in the Public Gallery today. They provided me with stark figures. I will put into context the reduction in the number of NHS-registered patients in North Belfast. In 2022, the number of children registered stood at 17,000, but that figure has now fallen to 15,000. In 2022, there were 57,000 adults registered, but that figure has now fallen to 42,000. Almost 20,000 people in North Belfast have lost their NHS provision in the space of three years, and, over that period, North Belfast has seen the sixth-largest reduction out of the 18 Assembly constituencies.

At a time when households are under significant financial pressure, more and more are being forced to put off essential treatment, because they cannot afford it. Access to healthcare should never depend on a person's ability to pay, yet too many in my constituency are being priced out of the very services on which they rely. We are now seeing the real consequences of consecutive Health Ministers — consecutive Health Ministers — growing inequality in providing for our dental practitioners. The situation therefore demands urgent attention and meaningful action to ensure that every family can access the care that they need.

The ongoing decline of funded dental services in North Belfast is simply unacceptable and is having a negative impact on young people, working families and pensioners. For many working families, private dental care is not an option. They are therefore being abandoned by a system that should be there to support them. As one of the most socio-economically deprived constituencies anywhere in Northern Ireland, North Belfast has its unique challenges. People simply have neither the ability nor the funds to pay for their treatment.

The figures produced by the organisations that represent dentists show that dentists are also at breaking point. I will read into the record some figures from the British Dental Association (BDA) survey. Some 71% of dentists who responded to its survey disagreed that they were fairly remunerated for their work. Job satisfaction for providers of dental care in Northern Ireland is the lowest of anywhere in the United Kingdom. Some 80% of those surveyed described themselves as being under extreme pressure and unable to help everyone whom they wanted to, and the financial pressures are building and building.

We need to review the funding model for practices, particularly in areas such as North Belfast. The Minister promised he would do that by the end of March. We are now midway through April, so I hope that the Minister can provide some update on when the business case will be put together by his Department so that our providers can see light at the end of the tunnel.

It is not simply an issue for the Minister of Health to address. I encourage him to put together a business case to ensure that there is a properly funded package for dental providers, and I will then go with him to the Minister of Finance and every other Executive colleague to tell them that they need to give him support for the review, because the situation is urgent. It is a crisis, and if we continue down the track that we are on, more people in North Belfast will be unable to access the care that they need. More people will have long-term illnesses because they have put off the treatment that they need. More young dentists and those who have been in the profession for years are going to move completely into private practice because they are not seeing light at the end of the tunnel.

If the Minister is able to commit to putting together a business case for a review of the cost of services, I will be his biggest champion in trying to ensure that that funding is in place. Practitioners across North Belfast need to see that we have a Health Minister, Assembly and Executive who are committed to supporting them so that our constituents can receive dental practice support in their time of need. I urge the Minister to be positive, today, and to give the commitment that he will put together a business case to ensure that the funding is in place to allow our people across the constituency to get the dental services that they require. I promise that I will stand with you, Minister, to make the argument to get the funding that my constituents deserve.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): All other Members who wish to speak will have approximately six minutes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank Phillip Brett for bringing the Adjournment debate. The Minister will be glad to know that we will soon have another Adjournment debate in relation to North Belfast. It is on multidisciplinary teams — another issue that we have been raising. I also apologise, because I have an appointment in the constituency and will have to leave soon, but I wanted to contribute to the debate.

Why are we raising these issues in Adjournment debates? We are doing so because, as Phillip said, people are contacting us on a regular basis. It is no coincidence that the standard of oral health, particularly in children, in the North Belfast, West Belfast and Foyle constituencies is among some of the worst. The sobering figures have been persistent for many decades. I have often heard the Minister talk about being a champion to address inequalities in health. This is an example of where he needs to step up. I appreciate Phillip saying that he will go with him to speak to whoever. We all would, but, at the end of the day, if the Minister says that he is going to make it a priority, we need to see what that will look like. When is it going to happen? How is it going to happen?

In preparation for this, I spoke to constituents, particularly teenagers. This is not about cosmetic work: it is not about that. It is about people who are living in pain. One constituent explained to me that the constant use of antibiotics, as a result of asthma and other respiratory illnesses as a child, has meant that his teeth are discoloured. I could see it. He is self-conscious. His parents are considering going to a credit union, again, to try to fund treatment for him. That is an absolute disgrace. I do not think that anybody wants that to happen on their watch. We have children growing up in poverty who have ill health and poor health outcomes, and dental decay will be added to the list of outcomes.

Our dentists have been very good. We know that they are running businesses, but they became dentists, primarily, to offer their support, services and expertise to a public health system. We are now seeing that, in North Belfast, dentistry and oral health services in general are not free at the point of need. The Minister needs to fess up to that. Those services are not free at the point of need for many people.

Phillip spoke about the displacement of some very good dentists. The top three issues that we get contacted about are health, housing and education, and they are followed by jobs. Dentistry has been a persistently stubborn issue within health. Dentists did their best, as did every health professional, during the COVID pandemic and global crisis, but a lot of people are saying that, since COVID, deregistration and a lack of access to public dentistry have been particularly pronounced.

I welcome the Adjournment debate. We all know that it is not easy for constituents to contact us, particularly when it is on something about which they are self-conscious, such as their teeth or appearance. The system in which dentistry is configured and the format for payments are well outdated. That is part of the reason why the ability of dentists to offer affordable public services has become so tight.

If there is another way to do that, I am sure that the Minister will be rigorous in testing his officials to find ways to make that happen. I am sure that, like the rest of us, he has had many constituents contact him about the issue. However, I can assure you that, in the worst areas of multiple deprivation, poor oral health is related to poor diet and poverty and, unfortunately, this is a persistent issue. I appeal to the Minister to have another look.

Again, I offer apologies because I really must go, but I appreciate the Adjournment debate. I want to say one more thing. The Royal has been excellent, but there is a pathway there for children with special needs. In my constituency, I am noticing that more children who are on the autism spectrum and who have ADHD and pathological demand avoidance are refusing to attend. In fact, they are not refusing; they cannot go into a dentist. Time is money. For them to go to a specialist service, people will have to start paying for it. Despite some great training that the dental staff have done, the parents who I have spoken to about that and many other issues ask me to raise it because, increasingly, a lot of children, due to neurodiversity, find it really difficult to go a dentist, and their families find it difficult to bring them.

Again, thank you, Phillip. I will read the Minister's response in Hansard.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for bringing the Adjournment debate to the House. As a member of the Health Committee and a North Belfast MLA, I have been working on the issue for some time. Like my colleagues in North Belfast, I see this issue in my constituency office time and again.

I hope that the Minister and the Department are aware of the links between poverty and oral hygiene. It is not merely a coincidence. Academic research highlights the fact that, in areas where there is more socio-economic deprivation, there are more people — younger people especially — who are more susceptible to oral health issues and tooth decay. That issue has been raised with us by organisations, as the Members who spoke previously said. However, in North Belfast, the issue has also been raised with us by preschool teachers who are noticing younger children in our constituency who have never been to a dentist. The first time that I spoke about this in the Assembly, a dentist from North Belfast contacted me to say that most parents are not aware, because there is no campaign, that children should see a dentist before their first birthday. I am a parent of two boys. My seven-year-old is not registered with an NHS dentist, or any dentist, but my nine-year-old and I are. We are very lucky that our dentist will see the seven-year-old and check on him, but we cannot register him with the practice. I am lucky that I can pay fees that are cheaper than private fees, but many people are not so lucky.

I have asked the Minister many questions, in the Committee and through questions for written answer, specifically about the dental access scheme. When people contact us in our constituency offices, our first priority is: can we get them on to the access scheme? So many of them cannot get on to that scheme because they do not need just one treatment. There needs to be an understanding in the Department that, when we ask people what they need, it is not just that they need one emergency treatment. They need ongoing treatment, and there is nowhere to turn to.

My colleague who opened the debate talked about additional funding and resources and the cost of service review. I have tabled a question for written answer to the Minister about the £1·6 million of additional support payments that were outlined last May, I believe, to dentists that are still providing NHS care. That money was announced, but it has still not been allocated. We also know that only half of the funding to mitigate rising employer National Insurance costs has been allocated, so, even when there is funding, we do not seem to see movement on it. It is really important that we do that.

It is also really important that we have a campaign to ensure that parents know that their children should be seen by dentist before their first birthday, but people in North Belfast simply cannot afford to go private.

Not everyone has the luxury of going to see a dentist for a check-up. When younger people over the age of five come forward to see a dentist, often it is too late. We see increased rates of tooth extraction, which means that the community hospital dentist team has longer waiting lists extended and is under more pressure. We are really talking about swings and roundabouts here: when you take your focus off one area, you put greater pressure on another area. Investing upstream will help the whole service.

I echo the contributions that have been made about dentists' practices and the dentists themselves who work in them. They are running businesses and, of course, offering a public service. No other business would run at a loss. If you are not getting paid for what you do, how can you sustain yourself? We hear from dentists who are not getting paid what it costs to put a filling in a person's mouth. They are working at a loss to do that. Of course they will turn private, because they are having to pay out of their own pocket, and we will see those waiting lists increase.

The Member spoke about 20,000 people in North Belfast — adults and young people — who are no longer registered with a dentist: where have those people gone? They have not all died and no longer need a dentist. They simply cannot turn anywhere else because, when their dentist turns private, they can no longer afford treatment. There is nowhere that they can turn.

We also need to see greater emphasis from the Department of Health and Department of Education on educational awareness in schools. I remember, as, I am sure, others do, that, when I was growing up, there was more discussion about dental hygiene in school. You were given a toothbrush and toothpaste, spoke about them and brought them home. That does not happen in all our preschools in North Belfast. In many of them it does, but we have had people reach out to say that it does not. Where it works, it is helpful. It might not seem like a big deal, but, when parents are already stretched enough with purchasing food and the rising cost of living, every little helps.

Can the Minister inform the House when he will publish the cost-of-service review that was commissioned a year ago and give us an update on the £1·6 million of additional funds that will be allocated? Can he provide any more information or help to our constituents in North Belfast who do not qualify for the dental access scheme and are not currently registered with a dentist? Where do they go, and where can they turn? We would be grateful to get answers from the Minister today.

Mr Kingston: I thank my North Belfast colleague, Phillip Brett, for tabling the Adjournment debate on the lack of NHS dental places in our constituency. The situation in North Belfast is, of course, part of a wider trend across Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. However, it is worst here. All the statistics reveal a steep decline in NHS dentistry. The prognosis for NHS dental care in North Belfast and across Northern Ireland is deeply concerning. It is one of continuing decline that will need significant intervention to reverse.

This week, my office staff contacted a number of dental practices in North Belfast. Of those they spoke to, all had closed their books to new NHS patients. In one case, that was due to the so-called NHS dentist leaving. In all cases, the surgeries were not able to accommodate the large volume of NHS patient requests, so they had a blanket refusal. All said that the financial payment for NHS dentistry was insufficient to cover all the actual costs, as others have pointed out, and, obviously, private dental work gives them a better and more sustainable financial return. A number of surgeries have also stopped taking on new private patients as they are at full capacity and cannot cope with any more.

Statistics from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) and the British Dental Association show that patient registrations for dental services in Northern Ireland have been falling at an alarming rate over the past three years, with over 389,000 fewer registered patients in Northern Ireland now compared with early 2023. That is a drop of around 28% in three years.

The fall in dental activity is even starker. The number of NHS dental treatments delivered in Northern Ireland in December 2025 was 40% lower than in December 2018. The BDA says that that collapse is due to the NHS payment system across the UK being insufficient to meet the cost of providing a modern dental service, meaning that practices prioritise private dental care. Those who seek NHS dentistry find themselves with literally nowhere to go, and the consequences are pain, poor dental health and debt.

The BDA says that a record number of dentists — 47,901 — are registered to practice in the United Kingdom. That number has increased by 17% over the past decade to an all-time high, yet a record number of people are unable to get on a dental register. The BDA reports that the proportion of time that dentists spend working on NHS dentistry is falling more rapidly in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK, falling here from 46% in 2024 to 43% in 2025 and just 39% in 2026. It is clear that something is fundamentally wrong. The BDA says that there is a:

That widening gap has destabilised the entire dental system.

We are told that the proportion of the UK's health budget that is spent on dentistry is the smallest of any European nation and that Northern Ireland invests less in NHS dental services per head of population than the other parts of the United Kingdom. In 2023-24, government spend on NHS dentistry per capita was £52 in Northern Ireland compared with £56 in Wales and £67 in Scotland.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has taken the time to attend the debate. Last year, he commissioned the general dental services to carry out a cost-of-service review, led by Professor Ciaran O'Neill. I understand that the review has now reported to the Minister, and I would welcome the Minister's reporting on and giving us an insight into the conclusions and recommendations of that review, which surely will be key to reversing the current decline in NHS dentistry in North Belfast and across Northern Ireland.

Mr McGrath: I thank Mr Brett for securing this important Adjournment debate. The key fact is that, while this debate is relevant to North Belfast, it could relate to anywhere, because such issues are faced in every constituency. Members have referenced the fact that they have had to deal with their constituents' inability to get services, and, likewise, I have had to deal with that in South Down. I should place it on the record that, like Miss McAllister, I am registered with an NHS dentist. I have been lucky to have maintained that for many years, but I know that that practice is one of the last such practices in my area and that people struggle to get access.

The message that has occurred over and over this evening is that we have got to the point of saying that we are at the end. We cannot continue the decline in dentistry any more. We have to decide whether that is what we want to see. Do we want to see dentistry being purely privatised? Many Members have put forward eloquently why that is not really an option. When we look at areas of deprivation such as those in North Belfast and others across Northern Ireland, we see that the people who cannot afford the services will be impacted on most. They will be left with declining oral health, and that will lead to other complications that, ultimately, we will have to deal with.

Less than half the population is registered with a health service dentist. That statistic tells us that access is absolutely collapsing. The system is broken, but it is not because dentists do not want to deliver the service; they absolutely do. If there is one thing that is clear, time and time again, when we meet dentists and the BDA, they say that they would absolutely love to be able to deliver a service. However, when you sit down with them and they go through the costs that are associated with some of the care that they provide, you realise that, from a business perspective, it costs them money to provide the service. We have to let that one land for a moment. It costs them to deliver a service. Who would do that? Who would go into business and say, "I will provide a service that is free, but beyond its being free, I will have to put my hand in my pocket and take from my business to provide that service"?

The alternative is that there is an industry around dental treatment. People like to have good-looking teeth. They like the sense of self-confidence and self-worth that comes with having a good set of teeth, and people are prepared to pay for that. We have taken something that should be a health service matter, and we have moved it into the private economic market. Unfortunately, it will always be the case that those who have the money will win in that scenario. We have to take a fundamental decision that we do not want that to be the future landscape. If we take the decision that we value everybody receiving basic care for their teeth, we have to be able to provide that service.

I will ask the Minister a series of questions to get some feedback. Does the Minister accept that, without urgent reform, we will lose what remains of health service dentistry in this mandate? That is the sort of crisis point that we have reached. We are not talking about the next 20 years or the next 50 years; we are talking about the next number of years. That statistic of less than half the population being registered with a dentist will decline.

Other Members referenced the full cost of service review. When will it be published? Hopefully, there will at least be an analysis of where we are in that review. Then, we can see where it falls short, and we can work to try to move forward.

Crucially, what is the estimated gap between what dentists are currently being paid and the real costs of delivering care? If that margin is too wide, there will be no provision of services. If that can be reduced to the point where they can deliver the service and get money back for doing it, I think that we will see an uptake in people accessing the services.

Will the Minister agree to seeking a reformed dental payment model with the BDA before the end of the mandate that will make health service dentistry sustainable in North Belfast and right across the North? The BDA has been lobbying many of us for many years now, and I think that we have accepted the point that, if it is not financially viable to deliver the service, the service will not be delivered, and we will see the problems stacking up for the future. Hopefully, we can get some light from the Minister this evening as to what will take place next, and, hopefully, services in North Belfast and beyond will improve.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Colin. I call the Minister. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank Phillip Brett for raising the issue and thank the Members who contributed. The debate highlights the very real and ongoing issues being experienced in Mr Brett's constituency. However, access to health service dentistry is a challenge across the entire region, not just North Belfast, so I will address concerns in the wider regional context.

I have made it clear that improving access and sustaining health service dentistry is a key area of focus for me. Access has reduced significantly over the past number of years, and in my update to the Health Committee earlier this year, I noted that official statistics now evidence that the percentage of our population currently registered with a health service dentist has fallen below 50%.

That percentage does not include those who are registered with a private dentist or who are receiving dental treatment through trust-based services, but the figure is still very concerning.

Historically, some areas of the region have had lower registration and treatment rates, often reflecting geography or population size, and North Belfast faces a combination of wider workforce pressures and reduced health service provision that mirrors trends that are being seen across many of our urban areas. Members will be aware that general dental practitioners are self-employed, independent contractors and are therefore free to choose where they practice and the proportion of their time that they wish to dedicate to the health service.

The number of practices and practitioners registered to provide health service care has not changed markedly in recent years. In North Belfast, there are 82 practitioners across 27 practices, and that is the fourth-highest number across all Assembly constituencies. That, Members may think, appears promising, but the registration rate in North Belfast has reduced by 27·9% in the past four years. It is clear that, although there are a sufficient number of dentists, the type of work that they are doing has changed. They are reducing the level of health service work that they are carrying out and increasing their private work. The pattern is the same right across Northern Ireland. The reason that is given for that is that the fees that are paid for health service treatment are insufficient to maintain practices' financial viability.

In January, I met representatives of the British Dental Association, and they were unequivocal in saying to me that the current system is unsustainable and nearing collapse. They proposed a payment reform model to address the current instability and the continuing loss of dentists to private practice. They are looking for a reduced, or core service, model, but that is a reform that would require significant investment. At present, the current budget cannot meet that requirement, because no Budget has been agreed. Although I recognise the necessity of payment reform, the reality is that reform on that scale is dependent on funding decisions that have not yet been agreed. Reaching agreement on the Budget as soon as possible is essential if we are to progress meaningful reform of general dental services. Until then, I am afraid that difficult constraints will remain, and my focus will remain on stabilising the service and protecting access wherever possible.

I have taken tangible steps to support and encourage the profession to continue providing health service dentistry in recent years. In 2025-26, I invested an additional £7 million in general dental services, and I have just agreed a further investment of £8 million for this financial year. That includes the continuation of a 30% enhancement to the fees for priority treatments, the continuation of the enhanced child examination scheme to encourage new child registrations, and £2 million of direct support for dental practitioners who continue to provide health service dental care. To answer Nuala McAllister's question, that is an increase on the £1·6 million that was provided in 2025-26.

Moreover, the enhanced child examination scheme is demonstrating that children in the most deprived quintiles represent the biggest registration figure. The enhanced child examination scheme is helping 76,493 children up to 10 years of age who are registered. Children who, owing to medical conditions, are unable to access care in general dental practice may be referred to community dental services. Miss McAllister mentioned preschool children, and she may wish to note that there has been an expansion of the Happy Smiles programme to children in P1, P2 and P3 in the 20% most deprived areas in Northern Ireland. The recommendation is for a child to see a dentist by their first birthday, as soon as their first tooth appears. The dental access scheme also remains in place, providing access for unregistered patients with a pressing or urgent oral healthcare need. Separately, last year, I also allocated a recurrent £2·5 million to practitioners to offset the costs associated with increased employers' National Insurance contributions.

Although I hope that those investment measures will be welcomed as meaningful and tangible steps in an extremely challenging financial context, I am also acutely aware that a financial envelope of £8 million is not enough to address the significant challenges facing general dental services. Sustaining and improving health service dentistry will require longer-term reform that is underpinned by additional investment if the service is to be placed on a stable and sustainable footing. My Department is facing a projected deficit of approximately £800 million — £800 million — in this financial year. Like last year, that is unprecedented and, frankly, unmanageable, and it will place a significant constraint on my ability to deliver immediate and meaningful reform.

Members will be aware that, in December 2024, I commissioned a cost-of-service review. The Department has now received that report. I say gently to Mr Kingston that I have not received it yet, but the Department has. I would like to think that I will receive it in days rather than weeks. We have that draft report, and officials will undertake detailed analysis and present it to me.

In the immediate term, my focus is on stabilisation, as I said, while longer-term reforms progress. Officials continue to target engagement with the dental profession through the BDA and the recently established GDS to form an advisory group whose aim is to better understand where access pressures are most acute and to direct resources accordingly. That includes improving our understanding of local access in areas such as North Belfast.

I want to be clear with Members that I fully recognise the real difficulties faced by patients in North Belfast who are struggling to access health service dentistry. I also recognise that those pressures are being felt elsewhere and that general dental practitioners are operating in an increasingly challenging environment.

In conclusion, I will make three points, if I may. The cost of service is extremely important, because the Department and the BDA are not on the same page when it comes to that critical area. Mr Brett quoted, I believe, that more than 70% of BDA respondents said that they were not appropriately rewarded. That in itself explains why the cost-of-service report is so important. Let us get on the same page as the BDA. We also need to explore something more than investing in the current regime. We need a new regime, but achieving that will be very challenging in the current financial constraints. The third point is to try to inject a little hope. I hope that the announcement of an £8 million investment, including the increase from £1·6 million to £2 million that Ms McAllister asked for clarification on, will do just that.

I will finish with this note of caution, however. We need a Budget. Every Department needs a Budget, and preferably a multi-year Budget. We need a Budget, because we are well into the financial year already.

Mr Brett: Minister, I appreciate your giving way. I support your call for a Budget. In your bids, how much have you asked for from the Minister of Finance in the forthcoming Budget specifically to focus on increasing NHS dental provision, above the £2 million that you have already articulated?

Mr Nesbitt: We have a draft Budget, and within that, there are many, many lines of budgetary commitments. Let me write to Mr Brett rather than try to recall hundreds of lines of budgetary commitments off the top of my head.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for the debate.